I know people are having fun, but I think MS is pulling a fast one and shame on them. They should finish their games before charging $60. I hope this doesn't become a thing in the future. I've put in 120+ hours in MHW. I didn't buy it hoping they finished the content later, it's all there now and extra is coming out already.
Gaming Value Propositions: What makes for a good game? *spawn*
- Thread starter DrJay24
- Start date
I know people are having fun, but I think MS is pulling a fast one and shame on them. They should finish their games before charging $60. I hope this doesn't become a thing in the future. I've put in 120+ hours in MHW. I didn't buy it hoping they finished the content later, it's all there now and extra is coming out already.
I think the lack on content, progression and amount of repetition is objectively true. Fun is subjective. Someone called it the most engaging chat room ever, which is fine if you are just trying to socialize, but imagine Johnny paid $60 that he saved and played it solo? Collecting chickens, treasure and killing the same skeletons over and over isn't much of a loop IMO.
I don't think it's worth $60, but then again there are a metric ton of games which are top sellers on other platforms for $60 that I don't think are even worth $5. Imagine Johnny buying those games and hating them too!
As for progression, there's plenty of progression that happens with building up the missions. What more do they need to add to make you feel like there is progression?
What you're complaining about is exactly the same game loop in Destiny or Overwatch or any other PVP game and you're not complaining about those.
As for progression, there's plenty of progression that happens with building up the missions. What more do they need to add to make you feel like there is progression?
What you're complaining about is exactly the same game loop in Destiny or Overwatch or any other PVP game and you're not complaining about those.
It's a "shared world adventure game". So socializing with others is the #1 goal of the game.Yes, you can play it solo but it's not what it was designed for. Until you play it, I can't take anyone's opinion seriously.
Btw, the loop is not just the 3 trading companies. It's it's all the emergent things that can happen on your way to completing voyages. Things the wash up on shore, treasure in shipwrecks, Skeleton Forts, the Kraken or playing with or against other real people you see out on the sea. That's the glue holds the loop together. End game is to become a pirate legend. If you don't like the game loop, it's not the game for you.
I also can't take anybody seriously who complains about the $60 price. You can play it for free for 14 days or pay $10/month. If you're really thrifty you can even get it free every month.
Go play it with a crew & then come back. You might be surprised with your experience.
Tommy McClain
djskribbles
Legend
Actually I think DrJay24 has complained about Destiny 2 (rightfully so), and he's not alone... not at all. Destiny 2 is dying because there's little to no reason to play it after you've completed everything. And this is coming from someone who has put thousands of hours into both Destiny 1 and Destiny 2 and hasn't touched Destiny 1 or 2 in a month.
From the sounds of it, there doesn't seem to be any character progression in SoT... everything seems to be cosmetic, which is one of the big complaints about Destiny 2 actually. In SoT especially, character progression seems to be desperately needed to extend the replayability... to reward players for doing these things over and over.
Destiny 1 had great character progression and a great end-game grind... no complaints there. Sure you were playing the same things over and over again, but the character leveling and the fact that there were weapons and armor with random rolls that considerably changed the performance of the item, made them worth grinding for. In Destiny 2, they took that all away, hence the complaints. There are other issues with D2, but that's one of the big ones and I won't get into the others because that's beside the point.
As for value, at least Destiny 2 has a decent base game, with a 8-10 hour campaign, a handful of coop strikes, a raid and PVP... arguably worth $60. The character progression is actually great up to the point where you hit max level, but after that there's little to no reason to continue. That's where Bungie improved on Destiny... the base game; it's the end-game and PVP that they messed up and are trying to fix.
Last edited:
Why does having an artificial character progression make any game better? Strip away artificial game loops and let the users enjoy the voyage with their friends.
Perhaps this is getting a bit deeper and should be its own thread, "what makes a good game experience?"
Perhaps this is getting a bit deeper and should be its own thread, "what makes a good game experience?"
People are struggling with having it both ways.
They want a game that is unique and different.
They get a game that is unique and different, and now they actually wanted it to be the same as all their other games.
I think Azbat really did sum up SoT nicely. SoT is one of the few analog based games out there, and this idea that progression should be RPG like is fairly nutty, considering the difference between sailing crews. There is a ton of depth to sailing in SoT and there are all forms of mechanics that can be utilized to succeed otherwise you're just relying on your opponent to be worser players than yourselves.
People are vastly overestimating their ability to understand or play the whole game after '5 hours of play'. They have the gist of it, but the deeper mechanics are the result of experience. Any other game that has no skill or gear progression is like this, the game is entirely about skill and strategy. There is no reason to bring in the concept of rewarding players with more play time.
They want a game that is unique and different.
They get a game that is unique and different, and now they actually wanted it to be the same as all their other games.
I think Azbat really did sum up SoT nicely. SoT is one of the few analog based games out there, and this idea that progression should be RPG like is fairly nutty, considering the difference between sailing crews. There is a ton of depth to sailing in SoT and there are all forms of mechanics that can be utilized to succeed otherwise you're just relying on your opponent to be worser players than yourselves.
People are vastly overestimating their ability to understand or play the whole game after '5 hours of play'. They have the gist of it, but the deeper mechanics are the result of experience. Any other game that has no skill or gear progression is like this, the game is entirely about skill and strategy. There is no reason to bring in the concept of rewarding players with more play time.
djskribbles
Legend
IMO, character progression greatly improves the replayability of the game. It also enhances the coop experience and fun factor. Getting rewarded something random that changes the performance of your character and sharing what you got with your friends is a big part of Destiny. That's why many games are using RPG elements in their games. You don't have to go full on RPG, but it's something that will make any game better IMO.
But I'm simply judging this from an outside perspective as I haven't played it. I'm simply reading the complaints and thinking that character progression seems like one logical addition that would help improve the game, but maybe I'm wrong... maybe that's not what Rare wanted to do and the game is simply not what many people expected.
DOTA, PUBG, Starcraft, Fortnite, LoL, Counterstrike, Sports Games, any board games. etc.
Don't have persistent progression game to game. Yet are still the most played games.
Character progression does not promote accessibility, it just locks people out of it. The only game I know that handles persistent character progression well (with class differences) is like. Pen and Paper RPGs where the main highlight is the role playing aspect of it.
djskribbles
Legend
I don't know what DOTA, LOL or Starcraft are like to be honest. Just judging by a quick google search, I'm assuming they at least have a strong PVP component.
But as far as PUBG, Counter-strike or Fortnite.. these are also not $60 games, which is the other issue with SoT... perceived value. These are PVP only games and are priced accordingly. They obviously have very strong PVP mechanics/gameplay to be as popular as they are. SoT seems to be an adventure-first, PVP second kind of game, correct me if I'm wrong.
Most if not all modern sports games offer character progression. Creating your own character and running them through the minors, getting drafted and improving on his skill attributes etc. are in all sports games I've seen. A large majority of games have some sort of character progression to varying levels.
Monster Hunter World is a great example of character progression. You basically do the same thing over and over, but the game has been universally praised in large part to it's excellent character progression.
Last edited:
Rare has been up front from the beginning. They wanted a social game that friends could go on adventures together regardless of rank. They wanted to tap into a game that included & not excluded & hope that it would appeal to people that probably don't play multiplayer games because they can't spend the time to keep their character at that same level as their friends. iRoboto is higher ranked than me but we can still play together & I can play his higher ranked voyages & still share in those rewards. The cosmetics help proudly showcase the kind of adventures I've had, but if I wanted I could just make my pirate look like a total beginner to fool my adversaries too. It's whatever you want to do.
Tommy McClain
djskribbles
Legend
That's fair. But there are more issues with the game, or at least common complaints that I see, and those are: value, replayability, variability in the missions and lack of content in general.
Again, I simply brought up character progression and random loot actually worth grinding for as a way to improve the game; that would at least help with replayability. Cosmetic rewards is simply not enough in this day and age IMO.
Sure there are some examples of successful games that only have cosmetic rewards, but they either have a very strong PVP and/or PVE component, or are budget priced titles etc.
If SoT was a $30 or even $40 game, people's expectations would've been lowered and there would've been fewer complaints.
People jokingly call this 'No Man's Sea', obviously referencing the No Man's Sky situation, and it really does have a lot of similarities.
Last edited:
I blame the user's (victim blaming) they should of waited for the reviews, would of saved themselves $60
This is one thing I've never understood (same with films etc, though that is more understandable because of spoilers. back in the days of videostores I used to live like 2 years after the new releases, others would pay $5 for 90mins, I would pay $1 for 90mins)
wait 2-6 months
* game is prolly cheaper
* game plays better (better performance, less bugs, more content)
This is one thing I've never understood (same with films etc, though that is more understandable because of spoilers. back in the days of videostores I used to live like 2 years after the new releases, others would pay $5 for 90mins, I would pay $1 for 90mins)
wait 2-6 months
* game is prolly cheaper
* game plays better (better performance, less bugs, more content)
Yes, these are some of our most popular played games online today. The games are largely PVP, as with most played competitive titles. Sea of Thieves pvp meta is still being discovered.
All of those games are entirely arena and have no where near the polish or content, or technologies that Sea of Thieves has employed. Grab a crew, have a ship battle in a middle of a hurricane and tell me you see that level of world dynamism in other games - save you some research here, they don't. Sea of Thieves is entirely what you want to make of it. The game purposefully limits players, making coordination, preparation and strategy paramount to your success. Defining success is entirely up to you. If you want the best loot in the game, chances are, unless you are lucky, you're going to need to fight for it.
It's a cheap trick to lull players to actually play the game more, in which in that process (carrot on the stick) they actually get better at the game and actually enjoy the secondary and tertiary gameplay loops that developers have designed for them.
djskribbles
Legend
Those games may not have the same amount of content or polish, but they are again budget priced titles. And in the case of Fortnite anyway, I disagree that it's not polished... it has far more polish than many full-priced games. As a paid package with the PVE and BR, it offers a lot of value and replayability for a budget priced title.
edit: and FWIW, Fortnite does have character progression. In BR, you unlock things in the seasons as you play. and level up, even if you don't buy the battlepass.
Call it what you want, but character progression or loot worth grinding for are the two best ways to improve replayability to a PVE focused game period.
If you think it's worth $60 and can find a way to get your money's worth, then that's fine... I'm sure many will do the same. Many people questioned whether Destiny was worth $60, and I easily got my money's worth. But at the same time, I think the criticism is justified. With pricing comes expectations, and at $60, clearly a lot of people's expectations were not met with SoT.
Last edited:
How many times does it have to be said but $60 is not it's only price point. You can pay $10 & play it for 30 days. Surely such a title that is light on content can be finished in that time, no?
Tommy McClain
djskribbles
Legend
Well yeah, that is a great way for you to try it out for a low price. But the whole point of this discussion is value proposition. Just because it's on game pass doesn't give it a free card and that we should completely ignore the price and the value that it offers. Reviewers aren't going to factor that into their scores because not everyone has game pass. The whole point of a review is to inform gamers how good or bad a game is, and whether or not it's worth the price.
And again, the price of a game sort of sets the expectations of a game. At $60, people expect either a meaty SP/PVE component, an in-depth PVP component with replayability, or a package of everything.
All I'm saying is that I think the criticism seems reasonable IMO, and I offered ways that I think they could improve it. Clearly some of you are against the idea of character progression, which is fine I guess... that's their opinion. But I honestly don't see how it would be a bad thing...
Last edited:
SoT is influenced by EvE Online and DayZ https://wccftech.com/sea-of-thieves-influenced-dayz-eve/
which aren't entirely not PVE based games. There are PVE things to do, but what separate them from other games in their groupings is the depth and distance of the stories of what happens. The players make the story here, and the stories are what makes the game interesting. There are going to be days where nothing happens. There will be moments that nothing happens and there will be moment's you will never be left alone.
That's what makes the game great, the stories are user generated. It's not some time challenge to beat the game.
I have it on game pass, but given how much I've played of it, and likely will continue to play of it, and considering there is no monthly fee, it's quite good imo if I didn't have game pass perhaps I would have bought it at full price with no regrets, that's hard to say.
But I am a game pass subscriber to save money not to spend more of it. My usual expenditures are about 500-600 a year in software, so sticking to game pass is a solid way for me to keep my annual expenses down.
You can't have your cake & eat it too. If you're only trying it for $10 for 30 days then that means it's not light on content. Light on content means it can be finished or fully experienced within the 30 days.
You can't talk about it's value proposition without including Game Pass into the discussion. Think of it this way. Either you spend $60 to own it forever or you spend $60 on Game Pass & get 6 months play out of it. If it's light on content like some people are saying surely you won't need to spend $60 to get your money's worth out of it. 1-2 months might be all you need, but if you do spend $60 on it I have no worries that you'll get your money's worth. Even if with the current content I think you can sink more than 30 hours in it.
BTW, to make the value proposition a little more complicated Rare has promised there will be no pay-to-play or loot boxes. When they start rolling out paid DLC in about 3 months you'll know exactly what you will be getting & it won't affect your character's power or progression. It will be purely optional. So far they have only talked about pets coming though. Sounds like you may never have to keep buying DLC to keep pace with all their planned updates. So you could in theory only spend $60 to be able to keep playing indefinitely. Isn't that worth considering in its value proposition too? Guess we will see in 3 months if they keep their promise.
Tommy McClain
Similar threads
