Originally Posted by stormlord
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Lets say that tomorrow Sony released a new feature for their EQ1 and EQ2 games and they call it Autoattack 2.0. This feature set makes your player a bot and it plays at 95% of the efficiency of an actual player. So if you decided to play yourself then you would gain a 5% total improvement in your game. The improvement is a result of clicking kick every 5 second interval. They improved the game because they received too many complaints from people who like to watch football, make dinner, clean the diapers, take out the garbage AND play EQ all at the same time.
Autoattack 2.0 is the latest example of the recent streamlining enhancements being applied to Sony's flagship games. A second installment of streamlining enhancements are expected in the coming months. Additionally, Sony expects significant other complimentary features to come into the game over the next year to make your game even better.
Helpful advice: Remember, don't do more than you can handle. Clicking the kick button requires lots of concentration and skill. Playing manually is only recommended for experienced players only. GM's are available for help.
Sorry about this. I know EQ isn't this bad. But with all the potential out there, why do games recycle the same sh** over and over? Why don't they improve on the mechanics to make it more involved and responsive?
Autoattack in EQ is nice, I suppose. Gives you time to think about aggro management and pathers and buffs and various other issues. Perhaps it needs to be simple, for these reasons. But combat, when you remove everything except the essentials, can be overly simplistic. I really do not like clicking kick over and over, for example. Aside from /autoattack, combat amounts to clicking the same buttons most of the time, except when intangibles happen; like you get an add.
What about those 'other' things? They would tend to be circumstantial. When I stand behind a mob, I don't notice a increase in my DPS (as I probably should). Rogue backstabs make sense for their class, but I've always thought that every class should see criticals or backstabs when they're behind an opponent. And the more players there're on a mob, the more vulnerable it should probably be. Shooting a mob with a bow from a distance makes sense and is nice to have, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I wish there was more skill in aiming. What about when a mob flees on low health? You stand behind and hit it. But it doesn't make sense to miss. The mob is weak and panicing - it should get hit HARD. There's not nearly as much circumstantial choices as I think there should be. I like to make choices, so sue me? I look forward to the day when reading your opponent to anticipate your next move is more important.
There needs to be more unique situations, not less, to yield this result. The predictable outcome is noobs will not know what to do. Even a veteran could get confused easily on a new opponent. But if games are never going to get better than they're today then WTF is wrong with us? Are we mindless rodents on a hamster wheel? Are we forsaken?
You see, I think most gamers want a responsive game that requires some skill. But developers, by and large, never meet expectations. They keep pumping out simplistic games over and over. There's an amount of mediocrity or incompetence. So when people get sick of this sh**, developers mistake it for meaning that they want overly simplistic games. The mistake is that developers assumed the game was too complicated to begin with. And tha'ts just not true. Most games are too simple, not too complicated. It's an error to make them even simpler. But, I guess, if you really are watching football, cleaning house, cooking dinner, doing bills, disciplining the kids AND playing EQ, maybe you want it simple.
|