As a game fan, the most disappointing aspect of games out there today is the shallowness of them. They have a learning curve that doesn''t require much of you and then your done you master it, and your done. I love 2 genres: FPS and RPG. RPG''s are my first love since back on the apple II with Ultima 3. I have always loved RPG''s and have generally gotten bored quickly with all Action type of games. One game caught me and held me in First Person Shooters. The Quake series has been a joy to play. Most FPS games are boring you get good and plateau and that''s it. The Quake series has one thing I find more interesting than any other. The quirky movement physics. They made mistakes when they coded, and they allowed some quirky movement patterns to let "skilled" quakers move faster, jump higher, and farther. This wasn''t some simple double tap to move quicker. It was a blatant analog feel type of action which you had to acquire. It took patience and time to acquire it and this kept me coming back. Along with the finesse of developing aim, using sound to fool opponents and generally strategizing about how to duel with others in an arena, the true test was learning to move smoothly and elegantly. So then, what is it about RPG''s that brings me back? Depth, story depth, character development options. The newness of exploring and getting spells, weapons, levels... But this wears out too. And again I end up back in quake. So my suggestion is always provide depth, but look for ways to provide depth in the configuration of the interface, and in the way in which the controls work. For example, casting spells by using keyboard combinatins and mouse gestures may be an interesting possibility. Intensity and damage based on motions. Hand-to-Hand combat systems which worry about angles of arms and hands. and controls which use timing direction and intensity of analog controls, would allow more of that type of behavior. Those behaviors would engender true "skill" development in our games, which would inherently create "stickiness" for the game. But ultimately, what I want most is a new game which can become my new home from quake 3, I don''t mind embarking on a new learning curve, as long as it''s going to be a long satisfying relationship. Depth of content, depth of interface, depth of story, even depth and variety of gameplay. Everyone makes games that disappear in a month or 2, but few can come up with games that last. One last comment: I''d rather beat a person in 1v1 quake 3 than in a MMORPG, because in the FPS, I feel like I am the person, and the skillz are truly mine. In the MMORPG, as much as I like and identify with the character, or avatar, the skills don''t feel like I''m performing them, they feel like I''m directing they''re performance. And that makes q3 more fun and more satisfying. I feel like it''s me shooting, me jumping, me killing. I control aim, movement, timing of the attack. For a MMORPG to be as engaging for me, I need the ability to feel as intimately related to the character as I do in a q3 arena. I believe adding true "skill" and/or "touch" to the interface usage would allow that. It can still contain skills in character development, but without the accompanying requisite interface interaction and finesse, it doesn''t provide the same level of satisfying feedback reaction in my brain

Breaking up the gameplay is one of my personal game design favorites. It''s great for providing an alternative activity in a world where the player might not feel like gunning down 2000000 bad guys today. Variety of gameplay keeps games interesting and fun to play.

kool.

peace

-Sage13

Liquid Moon Team

Project X2