'Tis why I said I was just being a twit Regen. My commentary was just a mindless jab.

But since you pressed it, I included colloquialisms, you included the rest. And I'm aware of the differences, otherwise the word would have been used in lieu, not in addition to 'slang'.

My comment with that post was that if you are to promote or prefer a particular mode of speech or communique, then you should be capable of using it correctly. Whether that's due to English not being a primary or not may influence such condition, but then it'd go to wonder the point of persistent banter on a non-native forum.

Onto another unrelated point.

I really really don't like the 'trinity'. Or any overly clear cut classes. It goes to the problem of comparing Chess to Go for me. Most games have gone the route of Chess. You have differentiated classes with differentiated functions to do a finite set of things. Now that's fine and dandy for Chess, because you have all those things at your disposal at once. In games though, where you're playing only one of those specialized classes, it's a rather big difference though. Strategies change dramatically, and overall become painfully simple and boring.

I don't care how much some one says it takes strategy to work with different character builds and classes in any game to do raids or otherwise. I have played them, and they have been found wanting. Severely so.

It's also a fault of the origin in part for me. A class based system to begin with limits the potential range of formula and strategy to the potential amount of combined patterns available with the set you have compared to the available set and placement of the enemy. That's why any halfway decent Chess player can see where a game is going only a move or two into a game.

I much prefer the depth of strategy involved in the need of overcoming the hidden variables in a game. A classless system is the only way to perform such an engaging task. Hence my preference for Go. It's the same piece used time and again, no special attributes differentiate it from the next piece, only your understanding of strategy and your ability to out think and out perform your opponent lets you win, not by doing the same formulaic movement sets again and again.

It's a system that allows for learning and adapting. Pac Man figured that one out, you couldn't keep doing the same thing over and over because the AI was wise enough to alter behavior to circumvent your prior strategy. I am still confused why it was an aspect of games that seems to have fallen by the wayside.

Originally posted by Jairoe03

Originally posted by Scottgun

"#6 The Holy Trinity

This is one I'm tossing into the list, even though I've come to accept it as an inevitability of design "

 

Smart man. Saying the archetypes of tank/healer/nuker are an overused convention is like saying wings on a plane are an overused convention. That is to say, when I think on the few games that went in for the "be anything you want to be" class design, all I can think of is that they SUCKED. ALL. DAY. LONG.

 

 

 

I beg to differ. I just think much of our thinking has been trapped into this mold and find it harder and harder to perceive a reality without it as more and more games utilize it.

The Holy Trinity exists because of the way most MMOs are designed. Hunting prey, reconnaisance/intel, and any semblance of need to be aware of your surrounding has been removed right down the the absence of collision detection. If these things were present, gameplay would be very different.

In most MMOs the mobs are just pinatas that spawn at a specific location, walk a specific path and rarely ever actively hunt players. This is true of both open world and dungeons. Battle does not start until you specifically trigger the beginning of combat. You will notice that MMOs where hunting is possible is where there are tactics and player behavior above and beyond the simplistic trinity setup.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

I can agree with that whole list except for acronyms and fantasy. Yes they are used but not overused.

 

LOL, I actually believe in the opposite.

Sure games I play a lot, I can go to their forums and read all the acronyms and understand them.  But what about games You and I are NOT playing.  The worst thing for me is start to play a game thats been out awhile and have to weed through all the acronyms and try and figure out what the heck people are trying to tell me.

You say "meet me at the DDY to pick up a PRI so we can then head to BYU"?  If I am new I have to look up all those acronyms............................. oh wait they don't have a MMO nerd dictionary for every game.

So instead I have to look through maps and books to see name of the city matches DDY, and what item name matched PRI, and what Dungeon BYU is.  I ask for help on where BYU and somebody answers its in the far northeast of GRP" ......Gee thanks that helps.

As for fantasy in MMO's?  With 90% of all MMO's being fantasy games is kind of hard to argue that fantasy is NOT being overused.  Especially since ther are some many other setting an MMO can be set  in.  MMO's are rpg's at its core soyou can make a goth, western, space, prehistoric, post apopcalyptic, and hundreds of other settings.  Basically if there was a book, comic, or movie about a setting, it can be done in an MMO.

So ith all these choices in settings why is there 90% fantasy in MMO's?  YEars ago I would argue its beucase of all the sword and baord gamers that moved over to MMO's.  These are the gamers MMO's were targeting.

But now, after wow made MMO's so mainstream devs should be branching out.  The good thing is they are starting too.  With minor successes like EVE and COH.  DEV's should no longer be trapped in fantsy settings.

Luckily however, game makers are trying to get away from the fantasy themes.  with recent sci fi releases and couple big names in sci fi like Star trek releasing, hoepfully the fantasy prefrence will change.  Especially when we finally get a AAA title by a AAA game maker with SWTOR. I also think Blizz will anounce shortly after Cataclysm a sci-fi mmo.

Originally posted by jerlot65

LOL, I actually believe in the opposite.

 

Sure games I play a lot, I can go to their forums and read all the acronyms and understand them.  But what about games You and I are NOT playing.  The worst thing for me is start to play a game thats been out awhile and have to weed through all the acronyms and try and figure out what the heck people are trying to tell me.

 

You say "meet me at the DDY to pick up a PRI so we can then head to BYU"?  If I am new I have to look up all those acronyms............................. oh wait they don't have a MMO nerd dictionary for every game.

 

So instead I have to look through maps and books to see name of the city matches DDY, and what item name matched PRI, and what Dungeon BYU is.  I ask for help on where BYU and somebody answers its in the far northeast of GRP" ......Gee thanks that helps.

As for fantasy in MMO's?  With 90% of all MMO's being fantasy games is kind of hard to argue that fantasy is NOT being overused.  Especially since ther are some many other setting an MMO can be set  in.  MMO's are rpg's at its core soyou can make a goth, western, space, prehistoric, post apopcalyptic, and hundreds of other settings.  Basically if there was a book, comic, or movie about a setting, it can be done in an MMO.

So ith all these choices in settings why is there 90% fantasy in MMO's?  YEars ago I would argue its beucase of all the sword and baord gamers that moved over to MMO's.  These are the gamers MMO's were targeting.

 

But now, after wow made MMO's so mainstream devs should be branching out.  The good thing is they are starting too.  With minor successes like EVE and COH.  DEV's should no longer be trapped in fantsy settings.

Luckily however, game makers are trying to get away from the fantasy themes.  with recent sci fi releases and couple big names in sci fi like Star trek releasing, hoepfully the fantasy prefrence will change.  Especially when we finally get a AAA title by a AAA game maker with SWTOR. I also think Blizz will anounce shortly after Cataclysm a sci-fi mmo.

 

I agree with your reference to acronyms and their usage inside of games. It makes it that much harder for a game to attract new blood, due to a communication dysfunct.

90% mass doesn't mean anything. It means relative abundance, but nothing beyond this.

WoW made MMOs mainstream, sure, but the 'branching out' by EvE amongst others never took place. They preceded WoW. Your opinions are based on 'facts' that aren't entirely straight.

I am suprised the most over used convention is not the "Us versus Them" convention where MMOs just make there be 2 sides to every story (eg. Horde vs Alliance) as opposed to multiple sides to a look on things (eg. Amarr, Gallante,Minmatar, Caldari) mostly this is because they want PvP mini-games to be easily determined by 2 sides, but really they are just too lazy to come up with alternative PvP strategies. 

Originally posted by haratu

I am suprised the most over used convention is not the "Us versus Them" convention where MMOs just make there be 2 sides to every story (eg. Horde vs Alliance) as opposed to multiple sides to a look on things (eg. Amarr, Gallante,Minmatar, Caldari) mostly this is because they want PvP mini-games to be easily determined by 2 sides, but really they are just too lazy to come up with alternative PvP strategies. 

I think this might be partly to do with time.  I'd think 3 factions would be a bit difficult if you weren't artificial about it.  You could easily get 2v1 situations which wouldn't be a lot of fun.  Four factions would fix this in multi-faction battles, but that's a lot harder to make that just two.
 

Great list. You certainly nailed alot of 'em.

I got another one for you: Equality.

Everyone has the "right" to craft just as well as the next guy. Everyone has the "right" to slay just as well as the next guy. Everyone has the "right" to achieve all the same things. The tools vary, but they're all just flavour. In the end, we're all champions in every way.

Not only is this a major design headache that puts severe limitations on the creative side of things, but it also makes everything extremely boring for the players.

People may think they want to be able to pwn in whatever field they choose to focus on at the time, but they don't realize that the price they pay is much higher than the reward. In the wake of debates like: Soloplay in MMORPG's, risk vs reward and actions vs consequence and meaning, the equality plague plays into all of them and more.

The illusory realm of a MMORPG becomes an illusion also within the game itself and we find that it's the differences that makes us who we are and gives us a chance to actually be someone.

If we all matter the same, none of us matters. We become the borg.

Game designers must think we're stupid, and maybe we are. But that doesn't mean that they can't use their professional insight to enlighten us and thereby actually developing the genre.

If you ask me, it's high time someone did something major and started adding dimensions instead of removing them.

Originally posted by Deivos

I really really don't like the 'trinity'. Or any overly clear cut classes. It goes to the problem of comparing Chess to Go for me. Most games have gone the route of Chess. You have differentiated classes with differentiated functions to do a finite set of things. Now that's fine and dandy for Chess, because you have all those things at your disposal at once. In games though, where you're playing only one of those specialized classes, it's a rather big difference though. Strategies change dramatically, and overall become painfully simple and boring.

I don't care how much some one says it takes strategy to work with different character builds and classes in any game to do raids or otherwise. I have played them, and they have been found wanting. Severely so.

 

This claim is unsubstantiated, and stands as simply an argument from authority. I would claim you don't have this kind of authority I'll counter it with an example Starcraft is a game of 'classes' with three distinct, balanced races. It certainly is not a trivial game. I chose this as what I would concider a relatively uncontrovercial example seeing the very high level of competition Starcraft enjoys. Saying you have "played them, and they have been found wanting" seems to me a far to audacious claim to make without serious backing up with any quantifiable merits. 

 

It's also a fault of the origin in part for me. A class based system to begin with limits the potential range of formula and strategy to the potential amount of combined patterns available with the set you have compared to the available set and placement of the enemy. That's why any halfway decent Chess player can see where a game is going only a move or two into a game.

 

This is nonsense, simple as that. No chess player can predict a game after two moves; Garry Kasparov could not do that even with the assistance of Rybka, let alone a "half way decent chess player". This is simply beyond human minds; and though theoretically possible, chess has not been solved by computers yet. To me this claim substantially undermines your argument, as it reveals a fundamental lack of knowledge of as well as a deep lack of humility.

 

I much prefer the depth of strategy involved in the need of overcoming the hidden variables in a game. A classless system is the only way to perform such an engaging task. Hence my preference for Go. It's the same piece used time and again, no special attributes differentiate it from the next piece, only your understanding of strategy and your ability to out think and out perform your opponent lets you win, not by doing the same formulaic movement sets again and again.

 

Claiming that you could win a chess game against a strong player simply trough "formulaic play" is absurd. Rybka might be able to do this (though I would claim it's not strictly speaking a formulaic system), you can't; nor can any other human player. The underhand claim of chess not having a depth of strategy is simply laughable.

As to a "classless system" it's worth noting that checkers has been solved. Making the argument for classless as the defining feature lacking. There are several reasons as to why go so far has proven harder to beat through computer planing (a much larger board, less reliance on material advantage, etc.) not having diffrent pieces is alas not one of them.

 

It's a system that allows for learning and adapting. Pac Man figured that one out, you couldn't keep doing the same thing over and over because the AI was wise enough to alter behavior to circumvent your prior strategy. I am still confused why it was an aspect of games that seems to have fallen by the wayside.

 

There are guides and paterns to Pac Man: http://www.mameworld.info/net/pacman/index.html                                                That done with you could try to find two professional chess games that are exactly alike. 

I apologize for the graverobbery, but I came across this post and I can not allow this stand unanswered.