Hopefully someone important reads these and it isn't just a community placebo.

Something I've observed since returning to the game is that there are some sections which are basically just standing and waiting, which isn't very fun.

The best example for me is one of the datacrons on Tatooine, which requires you to climb atop a sandcrawler, wait for a balloon, jump onto the balloon, and jump to another sandcrawler.

The problem is that it takes about a half hour for the balloon to come around, and another half hour for the balloon to arrive at your destination.

The balloon is a small, featureless area where you literally do nothing - other than moving around so you aren't logged out - and wait for a really long time.

In my opinion, having this sort of "content" in the game is just bad design, and almost seems spiteful or hostile towards players.

Does anyone at Bioware's offices read the above and think to themselves "that sounds like fun", "what a challenge", etc? If you were doing an interview to advertise your game, would you mention the part where you stand around for 30 minutes?

If not, why would you include it?

To preempt the person who will inevitably come by to say that datacrons are optional - this is true, but misses the point. If you're going to include content in the game, that content should be fun, challenging, or otherwise engaging in some way. I don't think anyone could credibly disagree with that, or credibly claim that waiting in idleness for somewhere between thirty minutes and an hour fits the bill.

Dear BioWare:

Please don't listen to this guy. That balloon ride remains one of the coolest experiences in the game: a chance to sit quietly and talk to a dear friend with absolutely nothing to interrupt you. It probably helps that Tattooine is one of my favorite planets.

Some time sinks are just there, but it's a game and it is to be expected. But things like the balloon ride - things that are different, unexpected, and pretty cool? Please don't ever take that away.

It's not always about the endgame or the destination. Sometimes the journey is part of the experience.

The really cool thing is that you can actually have thirty minutes to chat with a dear friend without interruption virtually at any time, by stepping away from the game and picking up a phone.

Or, if you manage to enjoy the scenery of Tatooine, simply standing around literally anywhere on the planet, chatting.

That's hardly a justification for objectively poor design.

Again, if Bioware were selling their game to an audience, they certainly wouldn't mention the part that simulates a waiting room, and certainly not with the justification that it gives you time to chat, lest they be laughed out of the room.

I can just imagine their E3 booth, where everyone gets an hour to stand and chat with the person in the next kiosk...but in game!

I admit I'm kind of bewildered, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this post is contrarian trolling, and not sincere. That a presumably gainfully employed person would find justification for a Star Wars-themed waiting room in the ability to use a chat box is absurd. If true, then it's no wonder Bioware engages in such passive aggressive behavior towards its audience. Why wouldn't you?

To preempt the person who will inevitably come by to say that datacrons are optional - this is true, but misses the point. If you're going to include content in the game, that content should be fun, challenging, or otherwise engaging in some way. I don't think anyone could credibly disagree with that, or credibly claim that waiting in idleness for somewhere between thirty minutes and an hour fits the bill.

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's just a game.

/thread

That's hardly a justification for objectively poor design.

Indeed, but you are on shaky ground saying that the cited example (or, indeed, any example) is objectively poor design.

Calling it "poor" design is making a value judgement, and all value judgements are subjective, even (especially?) the ones where you don't state the judgement criteria.

A time sink is what it is, and there are many time sinks. You have taken a stand against one particular kind of time sink, the one I call "hurry up and wait", but there are other kinds. "Are we there yet?" is the time sink of traversing terrain (running, riding mounts, taking taxis, etc.) actively. "Let me kill a few more!" is the time sink of clearing mobs in a "kill 10 rats" quest.(1) "Pick up the pieces!" is the time sink of collecting objects for a "collect 10 lost documents" quest. The list goes on. All of them are time sinks, and all of them attract complaints.

(The Secret World has a "collect documents" quest that was featured in a YT video. I've done the quest, a quiet moment of sorts, but it's in the Kingsmouth zone, which is a zombie-infested survival horror scenario, and absolutely excellent, with a constant tension of what's around the corner, and weird sh*t going on everywhere you look. It is as if the guy who posted it wanted to tear down the game, so he presented this quest as if it were "typical" of the game.)

(1) No complaints about a quest to kill only 10 rats, please. Each major zone in Allods Online (after you leave your faction's capital city's immediate vicinity) includes an "Anthropologist" who gives out quests. One of those quests is a little weird for an anthropologist to hand out, a sort of "genocide" quest. I remember one zone where the quest was to run around this small corner of the map killing werewolves and/or werebears. 125 of them. In the zone after, it was 100 vampires. 10 rats? Pffffffffffffffffff!

I was just greatful that I could cheat for this one, I have a doggy internet connection at times so I could have D/C'd at any time (not sure what happens if you D/C half way).

A guild mate summoned me to the top of the sandcrawler where the datacrons were so that I could get them with no hassel, the Endurance Makeb one on the otherhand, I never, never wanted to do that ever again.

Indeed, but you are on shaky ground saying that the cited example (or, indeed, any example) is objectively poor design.

 

Calling it "poor" design is making a value judgement, and all value judgements are subjective, even (especially?) the ones where you don't state the judgement criteria.

 

A time sink is what it is, and there are many time sinks. You have taken a stand against one particular kind of time sink, the one I call "hurry up and wait", but there are other kinds. "Are we there yet?" is the time sink of traversing terrain (running, riding mounts, taking taxis, etc.) actively. "Let me kill a few more!" is the time sink of clearing mobs in a "kill 10 rats" quest.(1) "Pick up the pieces!" is the time sink of collecting objects for a "collect 10 lost documents" quest. The list goes on. All of them are time sinks, and all of them attract complaints.

 

(The Secret World has a "collect documents" quest that was featured in a YT video. I've done the quest, a quiet moment of sorts, but it's in the Kingsmouth zone, which is a zombie-infested survival horror scenario, and absolutely excellent, with a constant tension of what's around the corner, and weird sh*t going on everywhere you look. It is as if the guy who posted it wanted to tear down the game, so he presented this quest as if it were "typical" of the game.)

 

(1) No complaints about a quest to kill only 10 rats, please. Each major zone in Allods Online (after you leave your faction's capital city's immediate vicinity) includes an "Anthropologist" who gives out quests. One of those quests is a little weird for an anthropologist to hand out, a sort of "genocide" quest. I remember one zone where the quest was to run around this small corner of the map killing werewolves and/or werebears. 125 of them. In the zone after, it was 100 vampires. 10 rats? Pffffffffffffffffff!

No.

First, a "value judgement' is perfectly able to be objective, to think otherwise is to delve into "opinions can't be wrong" foolishness.

This is a common argument that essentially rests on the idea that an observer can independently define or otherwise alter the meaning of words in an established language, and that just isn't the case. I'll give you an example:

That emoticon is red. If the person who designed it had set about to design a blue emoticon, then they have done a poor job. If the emoticon is supposed to be blue, then it is objectively poorly made.

Someone could come along with the opinion that the emoticon is blue, and they would be wrong. Someone else might decide that if you don't like the emoticon you just shouldn't use it, and that would be irrelevant.

That someone might call red blue, might be unaware of what red means, or could even have some difference to how they perceive color that causes it to legitimately look blue, is of no consequence. Red is red.

Red has an established, agreed upon meaning, and the emoticon has properties that can be measured against that meaning.

Likewise, Bioware has clear and frequently stated design goals, and the content of their game can be measured against that. Reasonable people without the goal of being contrarian for its own sake can agree that "long periods of literally doing nothing" make a poor appearance, and was not a design goal of the game. Arguing to the contrary is of the same merit as declaring red to be blue.

Secondly, I think you can usefully distinguish between "content that takes time to consume" and "things that are a waste of time". It does take time to kill 10 rats, then 100, but that's content. It takes time to craft, play a flashpoint, finish a warzone, watch a cutscene, etc. But that's content,. You could even argue that the in-game speeder rides are content, at least on the first go-around, though I'd be in favor of a skip option there as well.

But simply standing around for 30 minutes is not content. It's just standing there. This only becomes subjective when one doesn't understand the meaning of the words and concepts at play.

No.

 

First, a "value judgement' is perfectly able to be objective, to think otherwise is to delve into "opinions can't be wrong" foolishness.

You're wrong. That word "value" is the key. What one person values is not the same as what another values, so "value" is *subjective*. (This might come down to an argument about the definition of words, and if so, I apologise for bringing it up.)

This is a common argument that essentially rests on the idea that an observer can independently define or otherwise alter the meaning of words in an established language, and that just isn't the case. I'll give you an example:

 

 

That emoticon is red. If the person who designed it had set about to design a blue emoticon, then they have done a poor job. If the emoticon is supposed to be blue, then it is objectively poorly made.

I think I'm safe in saying that if the was designed to be blue, and it came out red, it would be a poor - in the sense of inaccurate - *execution* of the design. I would suggest that most people would also say that blue was a bad choice, but that is an opinion, even though, for reasons of "cultural norms", red usually signifies danger, heat, anger, and so on, while blue signifies cold, sadness (we sing "the blues", not "the reds"), and the like. "Cultural norms" are merely widely-shared opinions, not facts.

Someone could come along with the opinion that the emoticon is blue, and they would be wrong. Someone else might decide that if you don't like the emoticon you just shouldn't use it, and that would be irrelevant.

If the first person asserts that as a *fact*, then he is wrong. If he asserts it as an opinion, well, then I'd say he is a fool for holding such an opinion, although there is then a debate over what "What colour is X?" actually means. Case in point: a bluejay's feathers are famously at once blue and not blue. They *look* blue, but that is not because the material they are made of is blue. (It's black.) They look blue because of an optical scattering effect - if you crush them so as to damage the fine-grained surface structure, the blue disappears.

That someone might call red blue, might be unaware of what red means, or could even have some difference to how they perceive color that causes it to legitimately look blue, is of no consequence. Red is red.

 

Red has an established, agreed upon meaning, and the emoticon has properties that can be measured against that meaning.

True, but you've weakened your argument slightly with that "agreed upon" qualifier. It is appropriate, but highlights the fact that we are straying into subjective matters. Some languages distinguish certain colours only weakly - Welsh, for example uses the same native word for both blue and some shades of green, so that in "Brynglas", literally "Blue hill", the "glas" is referring to the colour of grass, and not Kentucky-style bluegrass. I've seen the hill in question, and it looked green to me.

But simply standing around for 30 minutes is not content. It's just standing there. This only becomes subjective when one doesn't understand the meaning of the words and concepts at play.

You are right. It isn't content, in the same way that any individual activity isn't content. The quest to kill rats is content. Killing the rats is not. But I notice you've changed the argument. Is it content? No, because that's not how we define content. (There's that agreed-upon definition thing again, suggesting a certain level of subjectivity...) In the same way, a datacron that requires *that* activity to collect is content, while the activity itself is not content. (For example, the one on Korriban near the shuttle, where you just walk round the corner to pick it up. The datacron-you-get-by-walking-round-the-corner is content, but walking round the corner, the activity, is not.)

Is it good or bad design? That remains a value judgement. We might say, "Standing around on a stupid balloon for half an hour? For what it gives, it isn't worth it!" For this person, the benefit is outweighed by the cost. A "completionist" might equally say, "Sure, I want to collect them all, I'm in!" For this person, the benefit is measured differently - an achievement (even if it isn't rated by the game) is incomplete unless he does the activity, and he might well say that it is worth standing around like that. But even the completionist isn't likely to value the achievement if there was a trivially accessible room that contained all the datacrons.

And there is another criterion for "good" or "bad" design in the context of an MMORPG: the presence or absence of choice of activity.