Careful, others are starting to catch onto your bullshit now.
You're wrong and you aren't even incorporating the counterarguments into your thinking, which is exactly why folks should not bother trying to discuss this game with you. Vertical progression refers to any time your game character's stats are upped as a result of playing the game, which is not limited to 'leveling up' the character via XP grinding. It also includes buffing the character's skills by inflating its stats. Just because players can choose which stats to buff doesn't magically turn it into something 'not vertical progression'.
The perks are earned via demonstrating existing skill with something, and as a result they further empower the player in that area. That is vertical progression because it artificially buffs a skill in a character that has an already-skilled player behind it. It does this in pursuit of delivering the power fantasy. SoT is not interested in such fantasies. That is not a flaw.
I don't know whether you're massively ignorant of other games or if you simply can't read.
At level one in Call of Duty 4 you have: One gun, one frag grenade, one side-arm and three perks
At level fifty-five in Call of Duty 4 you have: One gun, one frag grenade, one side-arm and three perks
You get more choices - but you do not get better stuff. This is horizontal progression. You cannot redefine it to suit your nonsense argument, and you certainly can't argue with people on the basis of your personal definition.
The only area of Call of Duty 4's progression system which is vertical is the way you unlock attachments.
First off, 'shared world' is not a genre, nor is MMO. Secondly, games in genres like rpg's or rpg-shooter derivatives do not do what SoT is doing, no matter how many times you just blindly assert it.
What is 'done better' specifically and in 'which games'? Please list all the games where player-driven stories are abundant and varied and which have cosmetics putting other players in central roles within those stories. Rpg's and games like Destiny/Division have an overarching story/mission structure to them which prevents much player-crafted narratives from developing. That in turn makes roles in a non-existent player-driven narrative immaterial, so when you assert that cosmetics in such games serve to differentiate roles in non-existent narratives obviously that cannot be the same thing SoT is doing. We can demonstrate the overwhelming success of SoT in positioning players to create emergent narratives themselves. Other games almost never have anything like that kinda of 'player-driven narrative sharing' because they aren't adept at creating player-driven narratives to begin with. That's why this game is suddenly so popular and why it skyrocketed to the top of streaming networks.
Where to even begin... I said before that you take Rare's PR a little too literally but that was obviously an enormous understatement.
1) I think most games do a better job with crafting interesting and meaningful cosmetic items, largely because you earn them through encounters and loot drops rather than boringly walking into a shop and spending gold.
2) Having a central narrative does not prevent other narratives from forming in an emergent fashion. Sea of Thieves' lack of an overarching story is not a strength.
3) Day Z comes to mind as a game which does a brilliant job of developing unique and varied narratives driven by player interaction.
4) I think you overestimate the game's popularity - it's way too early to tell. Sea of Thieves is an exciting and fresh new game and it did capture people's imagination. But I doubt it will have a huge twitch following beyond the launch honeymoon period. It's great if it does, but we should be realistic. The game only has so much to offer and people are going to feel like they've seen it all after a while. I don't think it has the variety or skill dependence to drive long term interest.
Lemme spell this out for you:
- Players take on roles in a player-centered narratives
- Players express themselves via cosmetics within these roles
- These cosmetics allow for player differentiation and affect decision making of other players
- Hence, cosmetics affect how players interpret the conditions they encounter within that narrative and affect those narrative outcomes
You're massively exaggerating this. People are not going to act substantially differently because they see someone wearing this garb or that. Sure, if I see someone with top end stuff I might treat them with care, but I do that in any game. If I see a Black Knight in Fortnite I assume they're going to be a much tougher fight than someone running around without a skin. It's just not that special.
For other games there is virtually no real element of player-centered narrative in the first place, hence there are no actual roles being played and thus cosmetics do not serve as anything other than a way to express yourself among ppl disinterested in your appearance. Nobody dresses their character up in order to express themselves within some strategy in those games. There is no element of interacting with another player's decision making. There is a reason SoT has spawned so many interesting player-driven stories in streams, youtube vids, hands on impressions of the press, pre-release tests, etc.
If you think that Sea of Thieves has spawned 'so many interesting player-driven stories in streams, youtube vids, hands on impressions of the press, pre-release tests, etc.' because of the cosmetics you're completely deluded.
