Ashreon said:Tanix said:I would be fine with flying mounts IF and this is a major IF... they designed travel in the game to be as important on the z axis as it is on the x/y axis. That would mean dangers being as common and prominient in the skies as they are on the ground. It means that if you were attacked in the air, or by someone from the ground... you could easily be knocked off and fall to your death.
The problem with such is that most people advocating for "flying mounts" really just want a fast travel means to circumvent content. In all honesty, it is often the same arguments made for wanting a mount. It is wanted because it makes travel easier and faster, period.
No, I'd be fine with dangers in the sky.. I'm not here to have a fast travel as a means to circumvent content. I already know that it will be possible for both Druid and Shaman to circumvent content with their movement speed buffs, thinking that they won't be able to is slightly silly ;). You can most definitely add Bards to the list of classes that will be able to circumvent content by outrunning it.. It would be weird not to have a movement speed buff song.
I do think that both Druids and Shamans should retain the fastest method of getting around whilst mounts is a slightly slower alternative.
Well, those spell based classes don't "bypass" content exactly, they just reduce the speed in travel. Where content bypass becomes an issue is if a class can avoid/bypass the content due to the spell. Don't get me wrong though, content bypassing is a component of play as well. A class that can "invis" can bypass content to an extent, but every application of such should come with a risk/balance to that approach.
With run speed buffs, there should be counters by mobs to dispell, root, snare, charm, etc... players as they pass through depending on location and environment. With a mount, I would expect no less that same restriction. The fact that a player may get from point A to B faster is not the entire issue, it is the consistencey and normality of such. That is, if we put in road ways that are always "deemed" safe, and then allow people to run/move at a pace, then we place travel at such a speed a default standard. Now if how fast a person gets through a reigon is "vairable". That is, there may be obtacles in place regardless of their travel method which could impede them, then we introduce a system of "chance" in play. Sure, the player is faster, better and if they are careful, more likely to pass through an area without issue, BUT there is always the varible which might impede them.
With flying in most modern games (and mounts to an extent), they actually circumvent the content. It is not simply an aid in travel, it is a free passing of content. Even in EQ, as a bard or other class with run speeds above the normal mobs, it was still a bit of a risk in some zones whether you would be able to "run through". There were numerous spells mobs could cast which increased the danger of survival.
Flying mounts as we normally see them in games completely ignore all dangers. They are like an express way to ignore content and while some games have allowed classes with spells to avoid such, I argue the concept that NO spell or ability should completely invalidate such in travel. In fact, I would like there to even be a rare chance of failure for a Group teleport spell to randomly drop you to another zone along the way. Though I would doubt most would accept such a condition.
Tanix said:disposalist said:Darck said:Tanix said:Yes, need mounts for immersion, but don't touch 3rd person camera I like having eyes in the back of my head. /sarc
Haha.. yes. This one always amused me in Imersion conversations. We want imersion.. but looking out your characters eyes? Thats just crazy talk.. those eyes should always float around unrealisticly 30 feet from one's head!
Immersion doesn't require a first person experience. In fact, attempting a first person experience can be immersion breaking, because it is so often so unrealistic that *you* could be doing what the character is doing.
Most novels and nearly all films are from the third person and it is much more natural (and thus immersive) to watch others do things.
In games it has always felt to me like I am 'directing' the actions of the hero. Like I am writing the story. I don't find it particularly immersive to pretend I somehow *am* that character.
I know others prefer it that way. Just trying to explain why it is not at all unrealistic or ridiculous to play a game in third person.
Actually I like to use both in a game - sometimes first person feels better, most times it feels natural and comfortable to me to have a better awareness of my character and it's surroundings.
First person view almost always has a very narrow, claustrophobic feeling and hardly being able to see your self feels odd. Being hit from behind by an giant? Often it's hard to tell which is ridiculous.
Anyway - I think I've made the point. To make first person in any way 'realistic' is extremely difficult. And anyway, immersion is not the same as realism.
If immersion is entirely subjective as you claim, then immersion is a meaingless word when it comes to describing any form of design goal in play. We should then simply stop using it entirely as it serves no purpose to even reference it in discussion.
Did I claim immersion was entirely subjective? Or just that it's not directly related to first person view or realism.
Immersion is one of many desired qualities in a video game. Creating a videogame that is immersive requires conscious efforts from the game developers.Immersion engages the player, keeping them dedicated to the game, and later motivates them to return.Apr 4, 2018 - end quote.
What is immersive to you doesn't mean it is immersive to me...therefore: subjective. Game developpers developping a game with a "hook" in other words, things to do, places to see...that hook is for a reason, to keep you playing. If what is built into the game isn't immersive for some...then those somebodies will leave and look for a new shiny game to play. :) Over the past decade I have seen a lot of that...players stay a month ..OOP new game released...gone. Let's hope that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen is immersive enough to suit most people..that the community is welcoming enough that most stay because of the friendships they have made..and so on. Its not just the game, it is the people in it. :)
#communitymatters
Cana
Ashreon said:Tigersin said:Soaren said: I must say flying mounts are super cool, to see the world below is a very unique perspective, but totally get why peeps see them as work arounds for areas, skipping content. So I would not allow them till max level. Players must have travelled through these areas numerous times...opening up the map, if you will. The Griffon quest line in Vanguard was phenomenal! As for ground mounts I think they should be in game and they should have some storage on them. They should be cared for (food, water...) they should be trainable (speed, stamina...)Regarding flying mounts at max level:
Do you think that max level Druids and Wizards will feel disillusioned if their peers don't rely on their teleports for travel? That is where my mind is at currently.
I will answer that with another question. Do you feel people should have to rely on others in order to get from A to B in a reasonable amount of time for them to progress in the game?
A mount whether it it is ground or flying wouldn't stop Druid or Wizard from being faster travel nor will it hinder people from taking them.
Being part of a community means that you rely on others in that community...its not a solo experience ..nor should it be. I remember my days in Star Wars Galaxies..that community was very reliant on each other...and it worked well. You get to know folks. :) As for wizards and druids...and teleports, I would dearly like an answer to that. My preferred main is an EQ style wizard equipped, with translocates, ports, group ports..and special ports to other planes that required reagents to get there. :) I realize that Pantheon is not a clone of EQ or any other game...just keeping my fingers crossed on this one. :)
Cana
CanadinaXegony said:Immersion is one of many desired qualities in a video game. Creating a videogame that is immersive requires conscious efforts from the game developers.Immersion engages the player, keeping them dedicated to the game, and later motivates them to return.Apr 4, 2018 - end quote.
What is immersive to you doesn't mean it is immersive to me...therefore: subjective. Game developpers developping a game with a "hook" in other words, things to do, places to see...that hook is for a reason, to keep you playing. If what is built into the game isn't immersive for some...then those somebodies will leave and look for a new shiny game to play. :) Over the past decade I have seen a lot of that...players stay a month ..OOP new game released...gone. Let's hope that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen is immersive enough to suit most people..that the community is welcoming enough that most stay because of the friendships they have made..and so on. Its not just the game, it is the people in it. :)
#communitymatters
Cana
I am confused. So immersion is entirely subjective? Then how do they design the game to be immersive? You can't design a game around a concept that only has meaning to the infinite level of subjective interpetations made by each individual.
As you said, one one person finds "immersive" another may not, so please explain what is immerserive and how Pantheon is to develop something to be immersive so that each and every individual finds it so to their own individual perception as to what immersive is.
disposalist said:Tanix said:disposalist said:Darck said:Tanix said:Yes, need mounts for immersion, but don't touch 3rd person camera I like having eyes in the back of my head. /sarc
Haha.. yes. This one always amused me in Imersion conversations. We want imersion.. but looking out your characters eyes? Thats just crazy talk.. those eyes should always float around unrealisticly 30 feet from one's head!
Immersion doesn't require a first person experience. In fact, attempting a first person experience can be immersion breaking, because it is so often so unrealistic that *you* could be doing what the character is doing.
Most novels and nearly all films are from the third person and it is much more natural (and thus immersive) to watch others do things.
In games it has always felt to me like I am 'directing' the actions of the hero. Like I am writing the story. I don't find it particularly immersive to pretend I somehow *am* that character.
I know others prefer it that way. Just trying to explain why it is not at all unrealistic or ridiculous to play a game in third person.
Actually I like to use both in a game - sometimes first person feels better, most times it feels natural and comfortable to me to have a better awareness of my character and it's surroundings.
First person view almost always has a very narrow, claustrophobic feeling and hardly being able to see your self feels odd. Being hit from behind by an giant? Often it's hard to tell which is ridiculous.
Anyway - I think I've made the point. To make first person in any way 'realistic' is extremely difficult. And anyway, immersion is not the same as realism.
If immersion is entirely subjective as you claim, then immersion is a meaingless word when it comes to describing any form of design goal in play. We should then simply stop using it entirely as it serves no purpose to even reference it in discussion.
Did I claim immersion was entirely subjective? Or just that it's not directly related to first person view or realism.
Looking out your character's eyes is.. imersion breaking? Clearly your definition of 'imersion' differs greatly from mine. And if you don't afterall think imersion is subjective as you say above, then you have to have some sort of definition for it. May I ask what that is? Though your combative nature in discussions that I have obseved over a number of threads might make me regret asking.
Darck said:disposalist said:Tanix said:disposalist said:Darck said:Tanix said:Yes, need mounts for immersion, but don't touch 3rd person camera I like having eyes in the back of my head. /sarc
Haha.. yes. This one always amused me in Imersion conversations. We want imersion.. but looking out your characters eyes? Thats just crazy talk.. those eyes should always float around unrealisticly 30 feet from one's head!
Immersion doesn't require a first person experience. In fact, attempting a first person experience can be immersion breaking, because it is so often so unrealistic that *you* could be doing what the character is doing.
Most novels and nearly all films are from the third person and it is much more natural (and thus immersive) to watch others do things.
In games it has always felt to me like I am 'directing' the actions of the hero. Like I am writing the story. I don't find it particularly immersive to pretend I somehow *am* that character.
I know others prefer it that way. Just trying to explain why it is not at all unrealistic or ridiculous to play a game in third person.
Actually I like to use both in a game - sometimes first person feels better, most times it feels natural and comfortable to me to have a better awareness of my character and it's surroundings.
First person view almost always has a very narrow, claustrophobic feeling and hardly being able to see your self feels odd. Being hit from behind by an giant? Often it's hard to tell which is ridiculous.
Anyway - I think I've made the point. To make first person in any way 'realistic' is extremely difficult. And anyway, immersion is not the same as realism.
If immersion is entirely subjective as you claim, then immersion is a meaingless word when it comes to describing any form of design goal in play. We should then simply stop using it entirely as it serves no purpose to even reference it in discussion.
Did I claim immersion was entirely subjective? Or just that it's not directly related to first person view or realism.
Looking out your character's eyes is.. imersion breaking? Clearly your definition of 'imersion' differs greatly from mine. And if you don't afterall think imersion is subjective as you say above, then you have to have some sort of definition for it. May I ask what that is? Though your combative nature in discussions that I have obseved over a number of threads might make me regret asking.
I'm combative when I'm attacked, yeah. Perhaps I should try harder not to be.
It seems like you're mistating my points in order to argue. In response to some attempt at ridiculing third person as immersive, I suggest attempting a first person experience *can be* immersion breaking, not *is* immersion breaking.
I also suggest immersion is not *entirely* subjective as I was accused of saying. It's very complex, isn't it?
No, I'm not going to attempt to define the concept of "immersion". I've expressed quite a few thoughts. If you still don't understand where I'm coming from *shrug* oh well. I had a go.
You're comments sound just like Tanix. I don't need to give a perfect definition of the concept of immersion to join in with a discussion here.
I may not post much, but I have paid attention. You generally seem to get combative without being attacked, you just seem to consider a counterpoint to your points as an attack. Honestly its not. I can honestly say that if I have a response that challenges a point you have made, I am not attacking you, believe me.
So, third person vs first person. When you say imersion, do you really mean comfort? If so, then that makes alot more sense. Third person IS alot more comfortable for alot of folks because situational awareness takes alot less effort, you can see around corners, see distance of aproaching enemies from more angles, etc, and thus in many cases make much better choices for your character's actions. But to see out of your characters eyes.. what can be more imersive than that? Does that make sense? We really just need to understand what it is we are talking about to have a good discussion.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Keeping it purely immersive and within the Lore of the game - Flying mounts, Ground mounts, both or no mounts at all, why? #MMORPG #communitymatters
I hope there will be no flying mounts, other then the odd taxi service. Any other adventure mount could be earned, bought. These mounts are mainly focused on increasing out of combat travel speed. Extra stats could be added, but it shouldn't be a given and when in combat those stats should be left out.
However, mounts could also be used to tackle environmental challenges. So one might be needing certain mounts to cross certain regions. This where other mounts might fail.
Flying mounts give an overview of the area, but take you out of the challenges and interaction with that world you're viewing. When using no mount or ground mounts, there are still objects that block line of sight or are higher then the player itself, giving them feeling of being inside that world.
This brings me to the statement that mounts could be of temporary sorts. Mounts can be used from stable to stable or from settlement to settlement. Privately owned mounts could be a thing, but those might not be suited for travelling across all climates. This would also mean that, when you've traveled through the desert and are reaching open steppes, the camel mount is no longer your best option as mount. You'll want to leave it at the edge of the desert and saddle up a horse. One could even go as far as to say, certain mounts will only walk on X climate conditions.
I'ld rather see the above stated regional/rented mount situation.
So the mounts will not require you to guide them back to their rentstables, if you dismiss them or when you die, they'll go there automatically and after X time they've reached that stable.
Within some districts or regions of the world it might be required to have a specific mount. The player riding this prestige mount is allowed acces to restricted areas, etc. So it might be a real goal to get that mount and ones you've earned it, riding it will open up certain things. So when other players view this player on that specific mount, they recognise : That player is able to access zone X which is off limits for all who do not have that mount. I find that really appealing.
Darck said:I may not post much, but I have paid attention. You generally seem to get combative without being attacked, you just seem to consider a counterpoint to your points as an attack. Honestly its not. I can honestly say that if I have a response that challenges a point you have made, I am not attacking you, believe me.
So, third person vs first person. When you say imersion, do you really mean comfort? If so, then that makes alot more sense. Third person IS alot more comfortable for alot of folks because situational awareness takes alot less effort, you can see around corners, see distance of aproaching enemies from more angles, etc, and thus in many cases make much better choices for your character's actions. But to see out of your characters eyes.. what can be more imersive than that? Does that make sense? We really just need to understand what it is we are talking about to have a good discussion.
When a counterpoint is made by essentially telling me I'm a stupid pleb (pointed out as an example of the public that it's futile to communicate with), of course it feels like an attack. However subtle and clever the attacker attempts to be, an attack is an attack whether it's stealthy and below the belt or not. Maybe they didn't really mean it that way and I shouldn't allow myself to get triggered, and I can be over-defensive sometimes, but I know when I'm being insulted.
If my post *generally* seem combative, I'm sorry about that. I don't intend that at all. I know I can be opinionated and I like to stand in the devil's advocate position, but I hope (unless goaded and triggered which is unusual) that I make reasoned arguments and don't try and present my opinion as fact or force it on anyone.
I think it's best we leave the issue behind and get back to the OP. Unpleasantness has derailed enough threads. I'm sorry for my part in it. I will try and be more mindful of making positive comments and ingnoring what feels like negativity.
... to get back to it ...
So, do I mean comfort not immersion? No, but I guess comfort is part of immersion. If something is clearly jarring to what my suspension of disbelief was happily enduring then that will negatively effect the immersion. I don't think that's *entirely* subjective, either. Some things will effect immersion for everyone, though perhaps to a greater or lesser degree. When things from pop culture turn up in a fantasy game, for example, that tends to be unimmersive to everyone, but, for humours sake, some will endure it (before anyone says I *want* that kind of thing, no I don't. It was an example. I dislike when pop culture turns up in a fantasy game).
In my original comments, all I was doing was playing devil's advocate to a couple of comments laughing at the concept of third person being immersive. I wasn't suggesting that, objectively, third person is more immersive or trying to force my own definiton of immersion, just noting that third person can be just as immersive and that first person can be just as unimmersive depending on the situation and the player.
As I went on the explain, sometimes I find first person more immersive, sometimes I find third person more immersive (for example, first person feels right in tight dungeons, partly because the third person camera technically has a hard time smoothly coping with confined spaces, but partly because the claustrophobic feel first person gives is appropriate). In an open field, first person feels wrong to me, because my awareness is so narrow and it would/should be the opposite.
In Battlefield - an multi-player FPS I love - it is entirely first person and is very immersive, but that's because the intense, scarey, claustrophobic, personal, gritty experience it helps impart is entirely appropriate to what is both a 'shooting game' and a first world war themed 'experience'. Even then, I personally, find the default field of view (something like 60 degrees) is too narrow. It feels so odd it even gives motion sickness to a lot of players. I open it out to 90 degrees or so, which still doesn't give 'realistic' situational awareness, but is comfortable enough to allow me ignore the effect and feel immersed.
I know it's not just me, too. It's come up in other games. These days, if a game has narrow field of view and doesn't offer a slider it's one of the first things people go looking for a 'hack' to 'fix' it (usually just changing a settings files somewhere). As I say, I know this is down to the almost physical discomfort that some experience, but I also know it's part of the immersion to some.
My last related point to attempt to explain my view (pun not intended) is about graphics. Surely, photo-realistic graphics would be the most immersive, yes? Well... no. Because when you attempt photo-realism you invariably fail and that failure is all the more jarring and weird *because* it was attempting to get so close. Problems in the technology are much more of a glaring error that is harder to overlook.
If you use stylised graphics that are clearly not 'real' then you can get away with a *lot* more 'stuff' (glitches and lack of detail and breaking the laws of physics etc) without breaking immersion because players are already accepting they aren't in 'reality' and they get used to the reality they are presented with.
A game like WoW may have taken it too far - a lot of people said it looked 'liked a cartoon' which didn't feel like high fantasy, but, as it turned out, it suited WoW which had large elements of 'cartoon style' fantasy (eventually even goblins on tinkered, 'fantasy' 'motorcycles' *shudder*)
Wow, I've waffled on... So I hope you get where I'm coming from.
disposalist said:Darck said:I may not post much, but I have paid attention. You generally seem to get combative without being attacked, you just seem to consider a counterpoint to your points as an attack. Honestly its not. I can honestly say that if I have a response that challenges a point you have made, I am not attacking you, believe me.
So, third person vs first person. When you say imersion, do you really mean comfort? If so, then that makes alot more sense. Third person IS alot more comfortable for alot of folks because situational awareness takes alot less effort, you can see around corners, see distance of aproaching enemies from more angles, etc, and thus in many cases make much better choices for your character's actions. But to see out of your characters eyes.. what can be more imersive than that? Does that make sense? We really just need to understand what it is we are talking about to have a good discussion.
When a counterpoint is made by essentially telling me I'm a stupid pleb (pointed out as an example of the public that it's futile to communicate with), of course it feels like an attack. However subtle and clever the attacker attempts to be, an attack is an attack whether it's stealthy and below the belt or not. Maybe they didn't really mean it that way and I shouldn't allow myself to get triggered, and I can be over-defensive sometimes, but I know when I'm being insulted.
If my post *generally* seem combative, I'm sorry about that. I don't intend that at all. I know I can be opinionated and I like to stand in the devil's advocate position, but I hope (unless goaded and triggered which is unusual) that I make reasoned arguments and don't try and present my opinion as fact or force it on anyone.
I think it's best we leave the issue behind and get back to the OP. Unpleasantness has derailed enough threads. I'm sorry for my part in it. I will try and be more mindful of making positive comments and ingnoring what feels like negativity.
... to get back to it ...
So, do I mean comfort not immersion? No, but I guess comfort is part of immersion. If something is clearly jarring to what my suspension of disbelief was happily enduring then that will negatively effect the immersion. I don't think that's *entirely* subjective, either. Some things will effect immersion for everyone, though perhaps to a greater or lesser degree. When things from pop culture turn up in a fantasy game, for example, that tends to be unimmersive to everyone, but, for humours sake, some will endure it (before anyone says I *want* that kind of thing, no I don't. It was an example. I dislike when pop culture turns up in a fantasy game).
In my original comments, all I was doing was playing devil's advocate to a couple of comments laughing at the concept of third person being immersive. I wasn't suggesting that, objectively, third person is more immersive or trying to force my own definiton of immersion, just noting that third person can be just as immersive and that first person can be just as unimmersive depending on the situation and the player.
As I went on the explain, sometimes I find first person more immersive, sometimes I find third person more immersive (for example, first person feels right in tight dungeons, partly because the third person camera technically has a hard time smoothly coping with confined spaces, but partly because the claustrophobic feel first person gives is appropriate). In an open field, first person feels wrong to me, because my awareness is so narrow and it would/should be the opposite.
In Battlefield - an multi-player FPS I love - it is entirely first person and is very immersive, but that's because the intense, scarey, claustrophobic, personal, gritty experience it helps impart is entirely appropriate to what is both a 'shooting game' and a first world war themed 'experience'. Even then, I personally, find the default field of view (something like 60 degrees) is too narrow. It feels so odd it even gives motion sickness to a lot of players. I open it out to 90 degrees or so, which still doesn't give 'realistic' situational awareness, but is comfortable enough to allow me ignore the effect and feel immersed.
I know it's not just me, too. It's come up in other games. These days, if a game has narrow field of view and doesn't offer a slider it's one of the first things people go looking for a 'hack' to 'fix' it (usually just changing a settings files somewhere). As I say, I know this is down to the almost physical discomfort that some experience, but I also know it's part of the immersion to some.
My last related point to attempt to explain my view (pun not intended) is about graphics. Surely, photo-realistic graphics would be the most immersive, yes? Well... no. Because when you attempt photo-realism you invariably fail and that failure is all the more jarring and weird *because* it was attempting to get so close. Problems in the technology are much more of a glaring error that is harder to overlook.
If you use stylised graphics that are clearly not 'real' then you can get away with a *lot* more 'stuff' (glitches and lack of detail and breaking the laws of physics etc) without breaking immersion because players are already accepting they aren't in 'reality' and they get used to the reality they are presented with.
A game like WoW may have taken it too far - a lot of people said it looked 'liked a cartoon' which didn't feel like high fantasy, but, as it turned out, it suited WoW which had large elements of 'cartoon style' fantasy (eventually even goblins on tinkered, 'fantasy' 'motorcycles' *shudder*)
Wow, I've waffled on... So I hope you get where I'm coming from.
I think you are choosing to read an attack into things yea. If you allow yourself to be 'triggered' as you say, a discussion inevitably goes south. But yea, moving to the points.
I think you really do have to have a definition for terms such as immersion, or it is really hard to discuss things. If its defined by the feeling of being your character for example, and operating in thier world, then first person must be more immersive than third, because you are litterally looking out your characters eyes. No matter what the environment is, that wouldn't change. In an open field, you might want the convenience of a wider field of view, but wouldn't that break imersion to not have to look around?
The other points you make on graphical realism, field of view, etc, all make sense in such a discusion as well.
I guess we really need to agree on a definition of terms to continue to discuss in any meaningful way. On a side note.. that might solve alot of issues with any discussion, but I digress ;)
Probably gone as far as we can in this line of conversation unless we feel like doing that. Probably not worth the time, can only serve to further go off the rails of the initial post, which was about imersion as it relates to pets and mounts. And since I can't at the moment think of anything to add for that specificly.. probably a good place for me to stop :)
Tanix said:CanadinaXegony said:Immersion is one of many desired qualities in a video game. Creating a videogame that is immersive requires conscious efforts from the game developers.Immersion engages the player, keeping them dedicated to the game, and later motivates them to return.Apr 4, 2018 - end quote.
What is immersive to you doesn't mean it is immersive to me...therefore: subjective. Game developpers developping a game with a "hook" in other words, things to do, places to see...that hook is for a reason, to keep you playing. If what is built into the game isn't immersive for some...then those somebodies will leave and look for a new shiny game to play. :) Over the past decade I have seen a lot of that...players stay a month ..OOP new game released...gone. Let's hope that Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen is immersive enough to suit most people..that the community is welcoming enough that most stay because of the friendships they have made..and so on. Its not just the game, it is the people in it. :)
#communitymatters
Cana
I am confused. So immersion is entirely subjective? Then how do they design the game to be immersive? You can't design a game around a concept that only has meaning to the infinite level of subjective interpetations made by each individual.
As you said, one one person finds "immersive" another may not, so please explain what is immerserive and how Pantheon is to develop something to be immersive so that each and every individual finds it so to their own individual perception as to what immersive is.
I am sorry that you are confused...I did list a definition..let me repeat it: Immersion is one of many desired qualities in a video game. Creating a videogame that is immersive requires conscious efforts from the game developers.Immersion engages the player, keeping them dedicated to the game, and later motivates them to return.Apr 4, 2018 - end quote.
So there are items or things in a game world that are immersive...some folks like crafting, some like raiding...some like pve, some like pvp. Some like adventure, exploring. And sometimes alot of people like a lot of those things together. Each person decides for themselves what parts of the game world are immersive for them.
Sparkly barbie horses are not immersive for me..neither are pink tutus. So you won't see me ever sporting something like that on my character. But one of my gaming friends might like those exact things...that is immersion for them, but not for me. :D Hope that is helpful. :) And again community, friends..good community...is immersive for me, can't speak for other folks..but that keeps me playing a long time. :)
Cana
Personally, I feel that they are largely too gimmicky. They work in a game like World of Warcraft, but in games like EverQuest and EQOA I feel like spells such as SoW and classes able to port are enough. I think they take the attention away from the character and the unique gear you've worked for, making peoples primary focus when they see you your mount. Overall it adds a feeling of generic to the game. I love that classes with SoW remain useful without mounts as well.
I also feel like it makes the world feel smaller when you can just mount up and zoom any time you want. It has always felt silly to me that we have these pocket beasts that are always readily available for us to ride. I want my identity to be my character, and not the mount I rode in on.
To keep it immersive, I would suggest having normal land mounts be relatively expensive to own, require maintenance/stabling and not disapear when you dismount.
BDO did this quite well:
Your mount became susceptible to agro if left in the middle of nowhere.
You had a whistle to call your mount to you within a reasonable distance, and it actually traveled along available roads to you, or through rough terrain if needed.
It leveled up and could defend itself from low level NPCs when left unattended.
If left unattended too long it would travel back to the closest stable, which you would have to travel to in order to recover it for a fee.
The stronger the mount got, the more food it consumed but it also provided an additional inventory (saddle bags) that you could only access when within proximity of the mount.
Breeding/selling/caring for mounts could be a player profession.
With all of that said, I would not be opposed to flying mounts, as long as they maintained immersion, i.e. if Dragons came back in an expansion and there were some smaller dragon species allied with the players that could be mounts - and NOT just all of a sudden, people hit level 50 and pegasi or griffons start to appear all over the place when nobody has ever seen anything in the sky before.
Still this debate ;) And I still think that flying mounts very much improve the world immersion. Some of the most spectacular scenery is only seen from above!
I'm currently back in FF14, and they have a really good implementation there: When you enter a zone, you cannot fly right away. You have to unlock the "ether currents", which is done by visiting various spots in the zone and attuning to them. Some currents can only be unlocked by completing quests in the zone...and those quests only become available once you're finished with the story quests in the zone! This means that you have to play through the zone's story "on foot" (or ground mount) before you can fly around there. So there is no "content skipping", you have to go through the zone the way the designers intended it at least once.
But it is a grand reward when you can finally fly around! Here's a few videos of flying around different FF14 zones:
The Fringes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWQfvnLyvxU
The Lochs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVEWrwV01A8
Amh Araeng: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7K_BowsTtw
Rak'tika Greatwood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascfjJXDWjo
Btw. flying was not possible in the initial FF14 (A realm reborn) game, and it still isn't possible to fly in the original zones (which is explained with missing ether currents in the lore I think). Flying became only available in the later expansions. That would be a fair compromise for me with Pantheon too.
Sarim said:Still this debate ;) And I still think that flying mounts very much improve the world immersion. Some of the most spectacular scenery is only seen from above!
I'm currently back in FF14, and they have a really good implementation there: When you enter a zone, you cannot fly right away. You have to unlock the "ether currents", which is done by visiting various spots in the zone and attuning to them. Some currents can only be unlocked by completing quests in the zone...and those quests only become available once you're finished with the story quests in the zone! This means that you have to play through the zone's story "on foot" (or ground mount) before you can fly around there. So there is no "content skipping", you have to go through the zone the way the designers intended it at least once.
But it is a grand reward when you can finally fly around! Here's a few videos of flying around different FF14 zones:
The Fringes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWQfvnLyvxU
The Lochs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVEWrwV01A8
Amh Araeng: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7K_BowsTtw
Rak'tika Greatwood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascfjJXDWjoBtw. flying was not possible in the initial FF14 (A realm reborn) game, and it still isn't possible to fly in the original zones (which is explained with missing ether currents in the lore I think). Flying became only available in the later expansions. That would be a fair compromise for me with Pantheon too.
Honestly, I really hope that there are no plans for flying mounts. Not only does it take away from so much player interaction, from a development standpoint it takes so many resources to make zones in a way that accomodate the ability to fly. If they really want people to get a birds eye view of one of their zones, there can be a spell that will allow you to either see through the eyes of a creature (which could include flying creatures). This will allow them to control which parts of the zone you actually could see, therefore reducing development cost compared to if they were to accomodate flying for each zone.
I think that flying mounts are far too easy to acquire in FF14, and that if they were to make them in this game they would have to be much more difficult to acquire, rare, and prestigous. But to craft zones in a way that allows such a niche thing is a lot of $$ for something such a small part of the community would experience. I really hope it's not and doubt it's high on the priority list for an already ambitious project.
I think flying works in games like WoW and FF14, but even then compare something like WoW classic to retail WoW. The world feels so much larger and alive with players when they're all on the ground in WoW Classic.