Ryzom

jamela wrote:Tasks: there's no punishment, they're not hard and they're only as important as you want them to be. They can be extremely tedious if you have to search all over the place for whatever it is the mission giver couldn't be bothered to find for themselves, but once you have found that you're done and in many cases you can repeat ad infinitum.

For you. For me it's punishment. I am not alone but I don't see why you would EXCLUDE the idea of tracking misssions better. Why not? Like I said, you could ignore them because I suppose it's not important to you, which is A-Ok.

elijstar wrote:I assume you're joking. That's not accurate at all. KOTOR had quests that advanced the game. Ultima 1 had quests that advanced the story. Wizardry had them. WoW has them, GW has them, the old MUDs I used to play had them. My old Pen-and-Paper Dungeons and Dragons was all about quests that advanced the story. You should try some other games.

Regards,
Ax

The first few games you are naming are single player games; much like most pnp games those quests are devised because you are the 'heroe(s)', thus you are bound to make an impact on the storyline, it was created for you; someone else won' t affect the course of the plot in 'your' game.
The questing in most MMO' s doesn' t change a single tidbit. After having slain the evil necromancer he just respawns. How does that make the storyline progress?

As DT said, the missions in SoR are nothing more than that: missions, not quests. They aren' t meant to progress the storyline, but should be seen as just plain chores.
But I' ll have to agree, for those nuts enough to carry out some of these missions (guilty as charged) a sort of log would be beneficial.

Sorry Axeal, I was still editing my post

me wrote:I think the point is to encourage people to "play" and have some initiative rather than do dull repetitive tasks, unless that's what they feel like doing that day. Doing something yourself is far more rewarding than having your hand held all the way, and let's be honest, when that hand is there most of us would take it most of the time. That's human nature.

You said you were in marketing, so I would suspect you've a pretty good idea of human nature and exploitation. And the ramifications of trying to achieve broad appeal. I'm in no way trying to be offensive or insulting, by the way. Like my comment earlier about "VHS standard", what has the broadest appeal and the greatest success is not necessarily a good thing. Subjective argument, sorry.

Good for who? Broadest appeal = greater probability of making money. Businesses exist to make money first and formost, one of many ways they do that is having happy (and thereby returning) customers, but its far from the only way. If a company loses 10 people by appealing to a broader audiance, but gains 35, it might be bad for you.. but its good for the company.

...And bad for the community. Quantity != quality.

seriel wrote:Good for who? Broadest appeal = greater probability of making money. Businesses exist to make money first and formost, one of many ways they do that is having happy (and thereby returning) customers, but its far from the only way. If a company loses 10 people by appealing to a broader audiance, but gains 35, it might be bad for you.. but its good for the company.

Niche marketing also has a role to play, it's just a different model.
There are lots of people dissatisfied with the lowest common denominator and you can pick up on them with smaller, more targetted concepts that can still be profitable.

Entertainment can also be art.

seriel wrote:Good for who? Broadest appeal = greater probability of making money. Businesses exist to make money first and formost ...

Not all businesses, as it happens, because people have a choice. We don't all subscribe to the idea that money is a sound end in itself. Currency is a tool. You know where this is leading? PvP. Honestly, it's competitive v cooperative argument once more.

And I am NOT saying that just 'cos Grim chipped in!

(Wahey, such timing, boyo )

jamela wrote:You know where this is leading? PvP. Honestly, it's competitive v cooperative argument once more.

On behalf of all who dislike PvP: "PvP sucks!"
On behalf of all who like PvP: "PvP is good!"

There, now that that's out of the way, we return you to the regularly scheduled program.

jamela wrote:(Wahey, such timing, boyo )

Better than Dr Who

*keeps trap shut on certain gamer demographic synchronicities*

and the missions are *not* in any sense a reason to play Ryzom. for that look to community, exploration, hunting, digging, discovering a wonderful recipe, getting lost in a storm, fighting the kitin, trying to get out of the Samsara pub nights with your purse intact, playing in the sand generally