I think harsh death penalties can work, because I read of a mod in NWN that was popular because it revolved around surviving and trying to make a level 20- you died (I forget) but you either went back to 1 or you lost a fair whack of exp. The thing is though (1) the likelihood is its more a small multiplayer appeal and (2) The rest of the game needs to fit around it. When I refer to (1)(in Everquest)- if I recall clerics were very heavily begged for rezzes over and over. The harsh death penalty wasn't maybe as universally appealling as maybe is suggested.
Absolutely, I agree that we are products of our environment. But how that environment influences us determines in which way our minds behave. All factors are extrinsic (because every last cell of your brain and body are physical and can be extrinsically modified), but is the reaction extrinsic or intrinsic?
What I would call an "extrinsically justified reaction" would be in effort of conservation. This is the desire of survival.
What I would call an "intrinsically justified reaction" would be in effort of discovery, without much regard of conservation. This is curiosity, or the desire to explore.
When we are extrinsically justified in our thoughts, we behave in a way similar to our "animal-class" cousins: we compete for resources, and we have the strong motivation to survive.
When we are intrinsically justified in our thoughts, which can only happen when there is no strong extrinsic motivation / competition (or the competition is not seen as the primary motivator), we behave in the full capacity of our naturally curious minds: we seek to discover and try new things.
Our minds have a certain hierarchy. Think of extrinsic motivation as our primary process, and intrinsic as our secondary. While the extrinsic need is satisfied, we enter an "intrinsic state." But we cannot enter that state while we are extrinsically justified.
If you show two people the same sort of non-linear problem (as in the video, the "candle problem") and offer one of them a huge reward, and the other guy nothing at all (this assumes they haven't been starved or tortured or what-have-you - they're physically and mentally sound and are isolated). The guy who was offered nothing will do better because he's not concentrated on anything but the problem. The risk for failure is nonexistent.
Now, who is to say he wasn't asked to solve the problem by a friend? Is that not extrinsic motivation?
Perhaps it is... but will the friend provide anything for doing so? Or is it just the intrinsic trust and love of the friend that drives him? Would the person solve the problem quickly if they don't place any value on their situation? What if they do not love what they're doing?
So it somewhat comes down to the question of: what is love?
(baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me... no more) A question that may have been answered more than once in more than a few ways in the scientific community, but I'm not subscribed to any journals that included a recent article about it. Since I haven't yet started any heavy research into it, I'm not at liberty to do anything but speculate.
EDIT - apologies for the possibly too-late reply. I don't have any definite amount of time to myself these days.
Gah! I saw this posting a little late! But no, never too late on replies. I understand about time- it's safe to assume these boards aren't a primary time commitment in anyone's life.
Food for thought: you mention a hierarchy of thought processes, but yet you state as children we are intrinsic and extrinsically bred into 'working'. If the hierarchy is extrinsic first, then there's discontinuity between these statements. For me, I simply endorse a looping rather than linear cycle, and such an understanding suits me so far.
As far as the tests that were done, since you mentioned it again, one thing that didn't check out with me is this: *who* did they offer the tests to? That much wasn't specified. If I offer my test to and R&D guy, a human resource manager, a corporate exec, I'm going to get a much better reading on possible out-of-the-box thinking. Motivator or not. If I offer my test to a high school dropout, an assembly line worker, or the like, I'll get limited result readings. Nationality-driven or not. We are bred to 'be' a certain way, to 'think' a certain way, based on our role in society.
Why do blacks in America do statistically poorer in school than their white counterparts? Is it because they're stupider? No. It's because the school system was built by a certain demographic, and they aren't that demographic. The instruction is done according to a specific culture and those outside that culture are at an immediate understanding disadvantage. So when these nails-and-box tests were done, albeit they are very rudimentary (but this is to someone like you or I), does everyone approach them with common insight and understanding?
That's why it's so hard to quantify these sorts of tests. The human element is the only variable scientists cannot pin down.
And for a good diversion, I'll take a pot-shot at your question: what *is* love? I would claim that love is a choice. But as much could be derived from my stance on willpower in this thread, and how obviously a choice can lead to emotions, which is how the topic is most commonly defined.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
What about those past (and most current) PC single player games that let you save your game anytime, anywhere? Did you ever play Half-Life without any sense of danger at any point? I sure didnt, there were some difficult, stressful times, even knowing the saved game had your back. In those games, the penalty for failing is failing itself. Failing means not succeeding, and thats enough. In mmorpgs, its always worse, not only you dont succeed at what you were trying to do, but the game either drops you off far away from where you died, takes some xp away, makes you repair, cuts your hp for a while, etc.
Regardless of whether the penalties these days are good or bad, I think that in some cases, dying should give you experience. Most of the time when I die, I actually learn something about the game and about my character and about the game world. I learn how 'not' to do certain things. Of course that experience is measured in the way I choose to incorporate it in my gameplay, but still, I think you learn by doing, and that means that inevitably (sp?) you learn by fucking up. And I dont think that my mmo should punish me anymore than neccessary.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
What about those past (and most current) PC single player games that let you save your game anytime, anywhere? Did you ever play Half-Life without any sense of danger at any point? I sure didnt, there were some difficult, stressful times, even knowing the saved game had your back. In those games, the penalty for failing is failing itself. Failing means not succeeding, and thats enough. In mmorpgs, its always worse, not only you dont succeed at what you were trying to do, but the game either drops you off far away from where you died, takes some xp away, makes you repair, cuts your hp for a while, etc. Regardless of whether the penalties these days are good or bad, I think that in some cases, dying should give you experience. Most of the time when I die, I actually learn something about the game and about my character and about the game world. I learn how 'not' to do certain things. Of course that experience is measured in the way I choose to incorporate it in my gameplay, but still, I think you learn by doing, and that means that inevitably (sp?) you learn by fucking up. And I dont think that my mmo should punish me anymore than neccessary.
Game saves in single player games require you to retrace your steps from the save to the point of death. They are more than simple 'failing is punishment enough'. Your example as it stands is contradictory.
I couldn't agree more with the 'more experience for having died' statement. I think there's a huge misnomer at the root of the words the MMO industry uses.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
What about those past (and most current) PC single player games that let you save your game anytime, anywhere? Did you ever play Half-Life without any sense of danger at any point? I sure didnt, there were some difficult, stressful times, even knowing the saved game had your back. In those games, the penalty for failing is failing itself. Failing means not succeeding, and thats enough. In mmorpgs, its always worse, not only you dont succeed at what you were trying to do, but the game either drops you off far away from where you died, takes some xp away, makes you repair, cuts your hp for a while, etc. Regardless of whether the penalties these days are good or bad, I think that in some cases, dying should give you experience. Most of the time when I die, I actually learn something about the game and about my character and about the game world. I learn how 'not' to do certain things. Of course that experience is measured in the way I choose to incorporate it in my gameplay, but still, I think you learn by doing, and that means that inevitably (sp?) you learn by fucking up. And I dont think that my mmo should punish me anymore than neccessary.
Game saves in single player games require you to retrace your steps from the save to the point of death. They are more than simple 'failing is punishment enough'. Your example as it stands is contradictory.
I couldn't agree more with the 'more experience for having died' statement. I think there's a huge misnomer at the root of the words the MMO industry uses.
Im sure you know what I meant. How many of us saved our game while on the edge of a cliff, anticipating the failure of the jump? No retracing there, you saved in the exact spot of the potential failure. Hit F6 or F12 and you're right back there only one <Space Bar> away from failing (or succeeding) again.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Im sure you know what I meant. How many of us saved our game while on the edge of a cliff, anticipating the failure of the jump? No retracing there, you saved in the exact spot of the potential failure. Hit F6 or F12 and you're right back there only one <Space Bar> away from failing (or succeeding) again.
Ah. Ok, now I understand what you're getting at. My assumption was a 'save point' which are strategically located throughout different levels (I'm sure we all know these styles of games). You were talking about the games with pro-active saves. But basically in this example you go into a battle or senario thinking/expecting to not succeed and take steps necessary to prevent the 'sting' of your 'spanking'.
The question here would be, answering as honestly as possible: if you couldn't pro-actively save anytime you sensed danger, would danger not hold more meaning? Would you not put everything you have into the attempt?
To me, it's a classic sink or swim senario. And I refuse to sink.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
comparing this to save points is surely more accepting WoW as a game design than say EQ. WoW you die and you go to the angel or whatever, that is the equivalent of a save point. EQ you die, and you lose an hour's exp or something.
Im sure you know what I meant. How many of us saved our game while on the edge of a cliff, anticipating the failure of the jump? No retracing there, you saved in the exact spot of the potential failure. Hit F6 or F12 and you're right back there only one <Space Bar> away from failing (or succeeding) again.
Ah. Ok, now I understand what you're getting at. My assumption was a 'save point' which are strategically located throughout different levels (I'm sure we all know these styles of games). You were talking about the games with pro-active saves. But basically in this example you go into a battle or senario thinking/expecting to not succeed and take steps necessary to prevent the 'sting' of your 'spanking'.
The question here would be, answering as honestly as possible: if you couldn't pro-actively save anytime you sensed danger, would danger not hold more meaning? Would you not put everything you have into the attempt?
To me, it's a classic sink or swim senario. And I refuse to sink.
Of course. My point was that that sense of danger isnt much lower when the sting doesnt hurt as much. Maybe its just how I feel, but regardless of the sting of defeat, nothing stings me more than just being defeated. The sting to me is just a 'kick while you're down'. I can deal with it, but do it enough times and it starts looking like a S&M routine more than a game to me.
Edit - For example, take L2 death penalty. Players can kill you, take XP and your gear. I played L2. I couldnt get past level 12 because a group of players kept ganking me almost everytime I played. Whenever I gathered some XP to level up, I'd end up ganked again and lost the XP. Needless to say, I didnt play L2 for long. Now, you can blame that on the players and not the game, but it was the game's rules that allowed what happened. Maybe I missed something because I was younger at the time and L2 was actually the first mmo game I ever experienced, but it wasnt a pleasant ride and I got off quickly.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Absolutely, I agree that we are products of our environment. But how that environment influences us determines in which way our minds behave. All factors are extrinsic (because every last cell of your brain and body are physical and can be extrinsically modified), but is the reaction extrinsic or intrinsic?
What I would call an "extrinsically justified reaction" would be in effort of conservation. This is the desire of survival.
What I would call an "intrinsically justified reaction" would be in effort of discovery, without much regard of conservation. This is curiosity, or the desire to explore.
When we are extrinsically justified in our thoughts, we behave in a way similar to our "animal-class" cousins: we compete for resources, and we have the strong motivation to survive.
When we are intrinsically justified in our thoughts, which can only happen when there is no strong extrinsic motivation / competition (or the competition is not seen as the primary motivator), we behave in the full capacity of our naturally curious minds: we seek to discover and try new things.
Our minds have a certain hierarchy. Think of extrinsic motivation as our primary process, and intrinsic as our secondary. While the extrinsic need is satisfied, we enter an "intrinsic state." But we cannot enter that state while we are extrinsically justified.
If you show two people the same sort of non-linear problem (as in the video, the "candle problem") and offer one of them a huge reward, and the other guy nothing at all (this assumes they haven't been starved or tortured or what-have-you - they're physically and mentally sound and are isolated). The guy who was offered nothing will do better because he's not concentrated on anything but the problem. The risk for failure is nonexistent.
Now, who is to say he wasn't asked to solve the problem by a friend? Is that not extrinsic motivation?
Perhaps it is... but will the friend provide anything for doing so? Or is it just the intrinsic trust and love of the friend that drives him? Would the person solve the problem quickly if they don't place any value on their situation? What if they do not love what they're doing?
So it somewhat comes down to the question of: what is love?
(baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me... no more) A question that may have been answered more than once in more than a few ways in the scientific community, but I'm not subscribed to any journals that included a recent article about it. Since I haven't yet started any heavy research into it, I'm not at liberty to do anything but speculate.
EDIT - apologies for the possibly too-late reply. I don't have any definite amount of time to myself these days.
Gah! I saw this posting a little late! But no, never too late on replies. I understand about time- it's safe to assume these boards aren't a primary time commitment in anyone's life.
Food for thought: you mention a hierarchy of thought processes, but yet you state as children we are intrinsic and extrinsically bred into 'working'. If the hierarchy is extrinsic first, then there's discontinuity between these statements. For me, I simply endorse a looping rather than linear cycle, and such an understanding suits me so far.
As far as the tests that were done, since you mentioned it again, one thing that didn't check out with me is this: *who* did they offer the tests to? That much wasn't specified. If I offer my test to and R&D guy, a human resource manager, a corporate exec, I'm going to get a much better reading on possible out-of-the-box thinking. Motivator or not. If I offer my test to a high school dropout, an assembly line worker, or the like, I'll get limited result readings. Nationality-driven or not. We are bred to 'be' a certain way, to 'think' a certain way, based on our role in society.
Why do blacks in America do statistically poorer in school than their white counterparts? Is it because they're stupider? No. It's because the school system was built by a certain demographic, and they aren't that demographic. The instruction is done according to a specific culture and those outside that culture are at an immediate understanding disadvantage. So when these nails-and-box tests were done, albeit they are very rudimentary (but this is to someone like you or I), does everyone approach them with common insight and understanding?
That's why it's so hard to quantify these sorts of tests. The human element is the only variable scientists cannot pin down.
And for a good diversion, I'll take a pot-shot at your question: what *is* love? I would claim that love is a choice. But as much could be derived from my stance on willpower in this thread, and how obviously a choice can lead to emotions, which is how the topic is most commonly defined.
I only had the time to sneak in one post before bed. My discussions can sometimes last months, often with days between replies. Well, the discussions would last, if my conversation partners wouldn't keep leaving. Maybe my posts are dry and pedantic after a while.
Anyways, I would argue that, as a child, being conditioned out of play and into work (out of intrinsic motivation and into extrinsic motivation) is a matter of necessity for our highly extrinsic society to operate. Is our society bad because of this? Hardly. But what is bad is that we are now being oppressed by this necessity rather than expanding out of it. It has become a dogma in the way we operate, and being creatures of adaptation and advancement, dogma can prove to be very painful to shed once it is established.
Think of it this way: if the child were to have everything provided for the rest of their life, and never needed anything, we would not need to condition them out of a majority of their natural curiosity.
Funneling children into a sort of conformity mechanism helped our highly mechanical society operate in the past, as there was a high requirement for manual labor in the past. But we've started automating those jobs en masse, and there are precious few of them left for those who need to make a living by doing them.
Had our earlier workers not been conditioned out of their creative ability at an early age, they could still make a living regardless of being replaced by machines (they would still be able to do useful things machines cannot do). It is unfortunate that people can become antiquated, and we should do all we can to prevent that, but I think we're going about it the wrong way.
On today:
Our societies have become more automated, and the cycle of extreme market fluctuation is getting more and more frequent. Capitalism relies on some measurable quanta of effort, that being mechanical labor, in order to circulate currency in a fair way. Because we're entering into an age where we no longer have need of any measurable mechanical effort to produce stuff, we must move away from that economic model and search for a new one. Greener pastures, so to speak.
The tasks of this century have shifted focus from that of a mechanical discipline to that of experimental discipline. We don't need to breed laborers now, we need to breed thinkers. Our schools don't do that too well, and consequently, our economy is dying because of it. "Too many people, not enough stable jobs." However, there doesn't need to be more jobs, there needs to be less people wanting them.
Bringing up the point of population control: you either do that through mass genocide (not a happy option), or you re-invent the systems that govern the people. It has been said that the masses do not know what they (specifically) want, and this is a true case of that assessment - they want to survive, and the only way they know how to do that is by getting a job, so they want jobs.
But they want to survive... that's where we should start in our innovation. How can we automate their survival?
On MMORPGs:
MMORPGs have a shorter and more easily recognizable "cycle of experimentation" than they did before. That is, it requires very little time to understand how the mechanics work, and after you figure them out, there's little else to learn.
What needs to happen to keep interest in these games is an introduction of greater and possibly smaller cycles of experimentation. Many developers answer that call with crafting systems or other mini-games, but fail to grasp the major disconnect between the "key note" of the game and those peripheral activities.
I say "key note" in relation to music theory, in which a song has a "key" that it revolves around in order to maintain a tonal center, which gives the listener a sort of "home" to refer to while the song's chords and melodies are dancing about it. It gives a sense of completeness and security to the listener (which can be exploited to make a song more emotional, but that's another topic entirely).
MMORPGs, like all other games, have a center. However, they tend to be very monotonous as they stay on that center and rarely leave it (they tend to drone, like I do when I give speeches - so the game becomes boring very quickly). When they do leave the center, it's either a shock and feels like an awkward inconsistency, or it's such a slight variation that it barely seems interesting at all. I suppose this may be required in order to appeal to this massive audience of such diverse interests.
In a related example: what do you get when you try to combine so many people's interest in music together into one? You either get a loud cacophony of everything, or you get a single note. Hrmm. Maybe it would be a better idea to just give the players instruments to play with, rather than drag them along on a completely uninteresting experience?
So there is one special thing about MMOGs that isn't part of other genres: persistent player content, shared instantly. Players can interact with the world, leave their mark, and share it with other people instantly.
It's not so special when you think about it in terms of system and lore consistency; because with such strict laws to abide, there is little room for meaningful player expansion.
It becomes special when you realize that the setting and laws can change to allow the people to do what they truly desire, much the same with our economic system.
The solution is "mass amateurization," I'm sure. IE: we stop making everything a "professional" field and allow for more creative experimentation and expression. Open source.
On a similar note:
SPORE had a great idea: give people the ability to make stuff for the game without needing any extensive education to do so. The problems that made the game unattractive were the strict linear progression and an unrelated DRM issue from EA.
It is my opinion that the game could have done better if the content creation included "the whole game" down to the player progression and engine itself. That is to say, players should have been able to make their own games rather than content for an admittedly boring one.
Im sure you know what I meant. How many of us saved our game while on the edge of a cliff, anticipating the failure of the jump? No retracing there, you saved in the exact spot of the potential failure. Hit F6 or F12 and you're right back there only one <Space Bar> away from failing (or succeeding) again.
Ah. Ok, now I understand what you're getting at. My assumption was a 'save point' which are strategically located throughout different levels (I'm sure we all know these styles of games). You were talking about the games with pro-active saves. But basically in this example you go into a battle or senario thinking/expecting to not succeed and take steps necessary to prevent the 'sting' of your 'spanking'.
The question here would be, answering as honestly as possible: if you couldn't pro-actively save anytime you sensed danger, would danger not hold more meaning? Would you not put everything you have into the attempt?
To me, it's a classic sink or swim senario. And I refuse to sink.
Of course. My point was that that sense of danger isnt much lower when the sting doesnt hurt as much. Maybe its just how I feel, but regardless of the sting of defeat, nothing stings me more than just being defeated. The sting to me is just a 'kick while you're down'. I can deal with it, but do it enough times and it starts looking like a S&M routine more than a game to me.
Edit - For example, take L2 death penalty. Players can kill you, take XP and your gear. I played L2. I couldnt get past level 12 because a group of players kept ganking me almost everytime I played. Whenever I gathered some XP to level up, I'd end up ganked again and lost the XP. Needless to say, I didnt play L2 for long. Now, you can blame that on the players and not the game, but it was the game's rules that allowed what happened. Maybe I missed something because I was younger at the time and L2 was actually the first mmo game I ever experienced, but it wasnt a pleasant ride and I got off quickly.
Ah. Rather than ask another rhetoric, and risk coming off as patronizing, I'll just close the loop. A sense of danger leads to excitement. Endorphins. But yet you don't want to be 'kicked while you're down' so you minimize the punishment. 'Fun', for you, has at odds with itself: excitement and punishment. But yet they are linked. And we're right back at the start of the thread with the OP suggesting poker as an analogy.
Sadly, I can't comment or relate to L2. Guild Wars just felt... foreign to me. And no, not the devs being from another nation, but the gameplay. NC Soft hasn't hooked me, despite my efforts. I can't explain it.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by pojung Ah. Rather than ask another rhetoric, and risk coming off as patronizing, I'll just close the loop. A sense of danger leads to excitement. Endorphins. But yet you don't want to be 'kicked while you're down' so you minimize the punishment. 'Fun', for you, has at odds with itself: excitement and punishment. But yet they are linked. And we're right back at the start of the thread with the OP suggesting poker as an analogy. Sadly, I can't comment or relate to L2. Guild Wars just felt... foreign to me. And no, not the devs being from another nation, but the gameplay. NC Soft hasn't hooked me, despite my efforts. I can't explain it.
What lies at the core of this discussion is that there is a competing way to achieve excitement. A sense of challenge also leads to excitement. The harder the challenge the more exciting one gets about beating it.
Maybe it is the way people are wired differently. Personally things like rollercosters or sky diving don't really excite me that much. However, get me thinking about a problem of getting my character from point A to point B in the fastest way and I start buzzing. So a death penalty really has no payoff in terms of excitement and is simply a 'buzz killer'. Using the poker analogy it is like playing a game of poker and having to go to the bathroom every five minutes becasue of a bladder problem.
In trying to explain to some folks on this board the importance, in regards to immersion and risk and reward, for having a death (or failure) penalty, I think I have finally come up with an analogy: Imagine playing poker with play money. Doesn't really hurt when you lose, but doesn't really mean as much when you win.
Yet still has all the challenge, and makes for a more enjoyable game at the end of the night for everyone.
You do however, need to really stop trying to perpetuate that all MMO's lack risk and challenge. It is simply untrue.
Originally posted by Little11
Thats why Diablo 2 hardcore mode was one of the greatest games ever made! gotta love harsh death penalty
Yes, it was SO HARDCORE, and SO AWESOME, they (players) made an app for it.
That's just one of the many.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Yet still has all the challenge, and makes for a more enjoyable game at the end of the night for everyone. You do however, need to really stop trying to perpetuate that all MMO's lack risk and challenge. It is simply untrue.
Well, that's your opinion and there is no right or wrong about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is fun and WoW, as popular as it is, does not cater to all.
I think that whether or not a thing is challenging is a seperate argument.
I would compare the people who don't like death penalties to those who save every 5 minutes in a single player game in case something bad happens. Facing the consequences of thier choices and actions is not fun for them. So they reload. It has nothing to do with challenge, that combat that they reload could be challenging everytime they attempt it.
To me, that's not fun. It would be like playing a game of chess and then asking your opponent if it would be ok to go back to move number 30 where you made a mistake. It would be like a baseball team asking if the 9th inning could be replayed because things didn't go thier way.
I prefer the need to carefully consider my choices and actions, and if I choose wrong, then there is a price to be paid.
Yet still has all the challenge, and makes for a more enjoyable game at the end of the night for everyone. You do however, need to really stop trying to perpetuate that all MMO's lack risk and challenge. It is simply untrue.
Well, that's your opinion and there is no right or wrong about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is fun and WoW, as popular as it is, does not cater to all.
I think that whether or not a thing is challenging is a seperate argument.
I would compare the people who don't like death penalties to those who save every 5 minutes in a single player game in case something bad happens. Facing the consequences of thier choices and actions is not fun for them. So they reload. It has nothing to do with challenge, that combat that they reload could be challenging everytime they attempt it.
To me, that's not fun. It would be like playing a game of chess and then asking your opponent if it would be ok to go back to move number 30 where you made a mistake. It would be like a baseball team asking if the 9th inning could be replayed because things didn't go thier way.
I prefer the need to carefully consider my choices and actions, and if I choose wrong, then there is a price to be paid.
You can't have both "extremely hard actual conent" and "severe death penalty" at the same time.
That would be simply way too overdone and nobody would enjoy that.
In MMOs, death penalty is compensated by other things such as easy-to-get gear, encounters with not too many gimmicks(or even classical tank and spanks, etc), a system that won't allow you to kill everyone without consequences.
Lineage 2 had a severe death penalty, you could lose both weeks worth of grinding an pieces of gear worth of months of grinding in a single death, from a rabbid PK group. See how that turned out after all.
Yet still has all the challenge, and makes for a more enjoyable game at the end of the night for everyone. You do however, need to really stop trying to perpetuate that all MMO's lack risk and challenge. It is simply untrue.
Well, that's your opinion and there is no right or wrong about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is fun and WoW, as popular as it is, does not cater to all.
I think that whether or not a thing is challenging is a seperate argument.
I would compare the people who don't like death penalties to those who save every 5 minutes in a single player game in case something bad happens. Facing the consequences of thier choices and actions is not fun for them. So they reload. It has nothing to do with challenge, that combat that they reload could be challenging everytime they attempt it.
To me, that's not fun. It would be like playing a game of chess and then asking your opponent if it would be ok to go back to move number 30 where you made a mistake. It would be like a baseball team asking if the 9th inning could be replayed because things didn't go thier way.
I prefer the need to carefully consider my choices and actions, and if I choose wrong, then there is a price to be paid.
You can't have both "extremely hard actual conent" and "severe death penalty" at the same time.
That would be simply way too overdone and nobody would enjoy that.
In MMOs, death penalty is compensated by other things such as easy-to-get gear, encounters with not too many gimmicks(or even classical tank and spanks, etc), a system that won't allow you to kill everyone without consequences.
Lineage 2 had a severe death penalty, you could lose both weeks worth of grinding an pieces of gear worth of months of grinding in a single death, from a rabbid PK group. See how that turned out after all.
I never said that a game should be impssible to complete without saving. I would not enjoy that game.
Again, I didn't say that there was anything wrong with your style of play, only that there are other people with different tastes.
Is Rush the greatest band ever simply because I say so? Are the Beatles the greatest just because they sold a lot of albums?
There is no "greatest", only what one personally thinks is great. Now, if I were all alone in my position, then one could rightly say that I am crazy. But clearly that is not the case.
What fun is winning when there is no possibility of losing or consequence to losing? Does one get a sense of accomplishment from that which has no consequence to or possibility of failure?
I suppose the answer to that quesion is yes. At least to the people who can't accept losing.
What fun is winning when there is no possibility of losing or consequence to losing? Does one get a sense of accomplishment from that which has no consequence to or possibility of failure? I suppose the answer to that quesion is yes. At least to the people who can't accept losing.
But here's the thing. There's a huge possibility of losing in some games that people call ez-mode but you don't get rammed by an(most of the time) artificial crockblock which is the death penalty. Disagree with me how much you want of this one, but I've seen many games where death penalty hides easy content with a few annoying gimmicks, instead of actual hard content from the 1st second you engage it.
Here's this example: Let's say there's this game where there's NO death penalty and a very unskilled party vs a very hard boss. Once one of party members die, they just respawn outside, bu they must wait until their group is completely wiped before jumping back.
Will they ever kill this boss? No, they can try how much they want, but after a night, they'll realise that they suck and they are simply not skilled enough to kill him.
This is a rather extreme example, but that doesn't mean games with an easier death penalty can't be challenging.
What fun is winning when there is no possibility of losing or consequence to losing? Does one get a sense of accomplishment from that which has no consequence to or possibility of failure? I suppose the answer to that quesion is yes. At least to the people who can't accept losing.
But here's the thing. There's a huge possibility of losing in some games that people call ez-mode but you don't get rammed by an(most of the time) artificial crockblock which is the death penalty. Disagree with me how much you want of this one, but I've seen many games where death penalty hides easy content with a few annoying gimmicks, instead of actual hard content from the 1st second you engage it.
Here's this example: Let's say there's this game where there's NO death penalty and a very unskilled party vs a very hard boss. Once one of party members die, they just respawn outside, bu they must wait until their group is completely wiped before jumping back.
Will they ever kill this boss? No, they can try how much they want, but after a night, they'll realise that they suck and they are simply not skilled enough to kill him.
This is a rather extreme example, but that doesn't mean games with an easier death penalty can't be challenging.
As I said, I think challenge is a whole different issue. You can reload the same combat time after time in single player and the combat that you are reloading can be challenging each time.
If there is no consequece to losing to that boss, then where is the satisfaction when you do beat the thing? If there is no consequence to soloing a dragon, then why not? Is that a scary monster?
I think many sort of forget about the RP in an mmorpg. Some of the more amazing things and accomplishments that I have personally seen were considered as such by me simply BECAUSE someone took a risk and won.
We often talk about risk vs reward on these boards. What exactly are you risking if you have nothing to lose?
I haven't forgotten to reply Plasuma. Christmas and all- I will when I get the time. Just checking in for you!
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
As I said, I think challenge is a whole different issue. You can reload the same combat time after time in single player and the combat that you are reloading can be challenging each time. If there is no consequece to losing to that boss, then where is the satisfaction when you do beat the thing? If there is no consequence to soloing a dragon, then why not? Is that a scary monster? I think many sort of forget about the RP in an mmorpg. Some of the more amazing things and accomplishments that I have personally seen were considered as such by me simply BECAUSE someone took a risk and won. We often talk about risk vs reward on these boards. What exactly are you risking if you have nothing to lose?
You get the massive satisfaction of beating a hard challenge. That's like the best buzz ever and it gets addictive. If you get used to it, then failing on the next challenge can put you right into a serious downer. That buzzkill is worse than any fake death penalty the game can put in.
Taking risks is easy, it's succeeding that it the hard part. One should reward success and not risk taking. If the same success can be obtained without taking a risk then that is the system that should be used.
Originally posted by Torik What lies at the core of this discussion is that there is a competing way to achieve excitement. A sense of challenge also leads to excitement. The harder the challenge the more exciting one gets about beating it. Maybe it is the way people are wired differently. Personally things like rollercosters or sky diving don't really excite me that much. However, get me thinking about a problem of getting my character from point A to point B in the fastest way and I start buzzing. So a death penalty really has no payoff in terms of excitement and is simply a 'buzz killer'. Using the poker analogy it is like playing a game of poker and having to go to the bathroom every five minutes becasue of a bladder problem.
Except, in any and all cases, people still achieve excitement from a sense of danger. There's no arguing this knowing the science behind endorphins. We are wired differently but still have this as a common trait. So the result, if you remove risk and danger, is a lessened experience.
It's all in dosage. There must be equal challenge excitement and equal risk excitement involved. 'Equal', agreed, is a term that is subjective to the individual...
But in poker, some people prefer risks of thousands, some just quarters. Where's the 'equal' for you, for everyone? What's the confidence interval that would include 95% of all gamers? The OP's suggestion fits the further you dive into the matter.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
As I said, I think challenge is a whole different issue. You can reload the same combat time after time in single player and the combat that you are reloading can be challenging each time. If there is no consequece to losing to that boss, then where is the satisfaction when you do beat the thing? If there is no consequence to soloing a dragon, then why not? Is that a scary monster? I think many sort of forget about the RP in an mmorpg. Some of the more amazing things and accomplishments that I have personally seen were considered as such by me simply BECAUSE someone took a risk and won. We often talk about risk vs reward on these boards. What exactly are you risking if you have nothing to lose?
You get the massive satisfaction of beating a hard challenge. That's like the best buzz ever and it gets addictive. If you get used to it, then failing on the next challenge can put you right into a serious downer. That buzzkill is worse than any fake death penalty the game can put in.
Taking risks is easy, it's succeeding that it the hard part. One should reward success and not risk taking. If the same success can be obtained without taking a risk then that is the system that should be used.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I just don't see your point of view and you don't see mine.
Point is, there is absolutely NO reason why both mindsets can't be catered to. And right now, they aren't.
Comments
I think harsh death penalties can work, because I read of a mod in NWN that was popular because it revolved around surviving and trying to make a level 20- you died (I forget) but you either went back to 1 or you lost a fair whack of exp. The thing is though (1) the likelihood is its more a small multiplayer appeal and (2) The rest of the game needs to fit around it. When I refer to (1)(in Everquest)- if I recall clerics were very heavily begged for rezzes over and over. The harsh death penalty wasn't maybe as universally appealling as maybe is suggested.
Gah! I saw this posting a little late! But no, never too late on replies. I understand about time- it's safe to assume these boards aren't a primary time commitment in anyone's life.
Food for thought: you mention a hierarchy of thought processes, but yet you state as children we are intrinsic and extrinsically bred into 'working'. If the hierarchy is extrinsic first, then there's discontinuity between these statements. For me, I simply endorse a looping rather than linear cycle, and such an understanding suits me so far.
As far as the tests that were done, since you mentioned it again, one thing that didn't check out with me is this: *who* did they offer the tests to? That much wasn't specified. If I offer my test to and R&D guy, a human resource manager, a corporate exec, I'm going to get a much better reading on possible out-of-the-box thinking. Motivator or not. If I offer my test to a high school dropout, an assembly line worker, or the like, I'll get limited result readings. Nationality-driven or not. We are bred to 'be' a certain way, to 'think' a certain way, based on our role in society.
Why do blacks in America do statistically poorer in school than their white counterparts? Is it because they're stupider? No. It's because the school system was built by a certain demographic, and they aren't that demographic. The instruction is done according to a specific culture and those outside that culture are at an immediate understanding disadvantage. So when these nails-and-box tests were done, albeit they are very rudimentary (but this is to someone like you or I), does everyone approach them with common insight and understanding?
That's why it's so hard to quantify these sorts of tests. The human element is the only variable scientists cannot pin down.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
What about those past (and most current) PC single player games that let you save your game anytime, anywhere? Did you ever play Half-Life without any sense of danger at any point? I sure didnt, there were some difficult, stressful times, even knowing the saved game had your back. In those games, the penalty for failing is failing itself. Failing means not succeeding, and thats enough. In mmorpgs, its always worse, not only you dont succeed at what you were trying to do, but the game either drops you off far away from where you died, takes some xp away, makes you repair, cuts your hp for a while, etc.
Regardless of whether the penalties these days are good or bad, I think that in some cases, dying should give you experience. Most of the time when I die, I actually learn something about the game and about my character and about the game world. I learn how 'not' to do certain things. Of course that experience is measured in the way I choose to incorporate it in my gameplay, but still, I think you learn by doing, and that means that inevitably (sp?) you learn by fucking up. And I dont think that my mmo should punish me anymore than neccessary.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Well, I Wanna Be The Guy has savestates every 1 map.
That doesn't mean there's one person on this forum that can finish it on Impossible Mode.
So yes, games can be ridicously hard without a retarded penalty.
Thats why Diablo 2 hardcore mode was one of the greatest games ever made! gotta love harsh death penalty
Yeah, but it made sense, since you could get a character from 1 to its 90s in a few hours and there were no bound items =P
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Game saves in single player games require you to retrace your steps from the save to the point of death. They are more than simple 'failing is punishment enough'. Your example as it stands is contradictory.
I couldn't agree more with the 'more experience for having died' statement. I think there's a huge misnomer at the root of the words the MMO industry uses.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Game saves in single player games require you to retrace your steps from the save to the point of death. They are more than simple 'failing is punishment enough'. Your example as it stands is contradictory.
I couldn't agree more with the 'more experience for having died' statement. I think there's a huge misnomer at the root of the words the MMO industry uses.
Im sure you know what I meant. How many of us saved our game while on the edge of a cliff, anticipating the failure of the jump? No retracing there, you saved in the exact spot of the potential failure. Hit F6 or F12 and you're right back there only one <Space Bar> away from failing (or succeeding) again.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Ah. Ok, now I understand what you're getting at. My assumption was a 'save point' which are strategically located throughout different levels (I'm sure we all know these styles of games). You were talking about the games with pro-active saves. But basically in this example you go into a battle or senario thinking/expecting to not succeed and take steps necessary to prevent the 'sting' of your 'spanking'.
The question here would be, answering as honestly as possible: if you couldn't pro-actively save anytime you sensed danger, would danger not hold more meaning? Would you not put everything you have into the attempt?
To me, it's a classic sink or swim senario. And I refuse to sink.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
But in the cliff edge theory, you have no choice, you have to make that jump or stop playing the game.
MMOs aren't like that. If you can't make that jump there are a thousand other things you can do to progress through the game.
comparing this to save points is surely more accepting WoW as a game design than say EQ. WoW you die and you go to the angel or whatever, that is the equivalent of a save point. EQ you die, and you lose an hour's exp or something.
Ah. Ok, now I understand what you're getting at. My assumption was a 'save point' which are strategically located throughout different levels (I'm sure we all know these styles of games). You were talking about the games with pro-active saves. But basically in this example you go into a battle or senario thinking/expecting to not succeed and take steps necessary to prevent the 'sting' of your 'spanking'.
The question here would be, answering as honestly as possible: if you couldn't pro-actively save anytime you sensed danger, would danger not hold more meaning? Would you not put everything you have into the attempt?
To me, it's a classic sink or swim senario. And I refuse to sink.
Of course. My point was that that sense of danger isnt much lower when the sting doesnt hurt as much. Maybe its just how I feel, but regardless of the sting of defeat, nothing stings me more than just being defeated. The sting to me is just a 'kick while you're down'. I can deal with it, but do it enough times and it starts looking like a S&M routine more than a game to me.
Edit - For example, take L2 death penalty. Players can kill you, take XP and your gear. I played L2. I couldnt get past level 12 because a group of players kept ganking me almost everytime I played. Whenever I gathered some XP to level up, I'd end up ganked again and lost the XP. Needless to say, I didnt play L2 for long. Now, you can blame that on the players and not the game, but it was the game's rules that allowed what happened. Maybe I missed something because I was younger at the time and L2 was actually the first mmo game I ever experienced, but it wasnt a pleasant ride and I got off quickly.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Gah! I saw this posting a little late! But no, never too late on replies. I understand about time- it's safe to assume these boards aren't a primary time commitment in anyone's life.
Food for thought: you mention a hierarchy of thought processes, but yet you state as children we are intrinsic and extrinsically bred into 'working'. If the hierarchy is extrinsic first, then there's discontinuity between these statements. For me, I simply endorse a looping rather than linear cycle, and such an understanding suits me so far.
As far as the tests that were done, since you mentioned it again, one thing that didn't check out with me is this: *who* did they offer the tests to? That much wasn't specified. If I offer my test to and R&D guy, a human resource manager, a corporate exec, I'm going to get a much better reading on possible out-of-the-box thinking. Motivator or not. If I offer my test to a high school dropout, an assembly line worker, or the like, I'll get limited result readings. Nationality-driven or not. We are bred to 'be' a certain way, to 'think' a certain way, based on our role in society.
Why do blacks in America do statistically poorer in school than their white counterparts? Is it because they're stupider? No. It's because the school system was built by a certain demographic, and they aren't that demographic. The instruction is done according to a specific culture and those outside that culture are at an immediate understanding disadvantage. So when these nails-and-box tests were done, albeit they are very rudimentary (but this is to someone like you or I), does everyone approach them with common insight and understanding?
That's why it's so hard to quantify these sorts of tests. The human element is the only variable scientists cannot pin down.
I only had the time to sneak in one post before bed. My discussions can sometimes last months, often with days between replies. Well, the discussions would last, if my conversation partners wouldn't keep leaving. Maybe my posts are dry and pedantic after a while.
Anyways, I would argue that, as a child, being conditioned out of play and into work (out of intrinsic motivation and into extrinsic motivation) is a matter of necessity for our highly extrinsic society to operate. Is our society bad because of this? Hardly. But what is bad is that we are now being oppressed by this necessity rather than expanding out of it. It has become a dogma in the way we operate, and being creatures of adaptation and advancement, dogma can prove to be very painful to shed once it is established.
Think of it this way: if the child were to have everything provided for the rest of their life, and never needed anything, we would not need to condition them out of a majority of their natural curiosity.
Funneling children into a sort of conformity mechanism helped our highly mechanical society operate in the past, as there was a high requirement for manual labor in the past. But we've started automating those jobs en masse, and there are precious few of them left for those who need to make a living by doing them.
Had our earlier workers not been conditioned out of their creative ability at an early age, they could still make a living regardless of being replaced by machines (they would still be able to do useful things machines cannot do). It is unfortunate that people can become antiquated, and we should do all we can to prevent that, but I think we're going about it the wrong way.
On today:
Our societies have become more automated, and the cycle of extreme market fluctuation is getting more and more frequent. Capitalism relies on some measurable quanta of effort, that being mechanical labor, in order to circulate currency in a fair way. Because we're entering into an age where we no longer have need of any measurable mechanical effort to produce stuff, we must move away from that economic model and search for a new one. Greener pastures, so to speak.
The tasks of this century have shifted focus from that of a mechanical discipline to that of experimental discipline. We don't need to breed laborers now, we need to breed thinkers. Our schools don't do that too well, and consequently, our economy is dying because of it. "Too many people, not enough stable jobs." However, there doesn't need to be more jobs, there needs to be less people wanting them.
Bringing up the point of population control: you either do that through mass genocide (not a happy option), or you re-invent the systems that govern the people. It has been said that the masses do not know what they (specifically) want, and this is a true case of that assessment - they want to survive, and the only way they know how to do that is by getting a job, so they want jobs.
But they want to survive... that's where we should start in our innovation. How can we automate their survival?
On MMORPGs:
MMORPGs have a shorter and more easily recognizable "cycle of experimentation" than they did before. That is, it requires very little time to understand how the mechanics work, and after you figure them out, there's little else to learn.
What needs to happen to keep interest in these games is an introduction of greater and possibly smaller cycles of experimentation. Many developers answer that call with crafting systems or other mini-games, but fail to grasp the major disconnect between the "key note" of the game and those peripheral activities.
I say "key note" in relation to music theory, in which a song has a "key" that it revolves around in order to maintain a tonal center, which gives the listener a sort of "home" to refer to while the song's chords and melodies are dancing about it. It gives a sense of completeness and security to the listener (which can be exploited to make a song more emotional, but that's another topic entirely).
MMORPGs, like all other games, have a center. However, they tend to be very monotonous as they stay on that center and rarely leave it (they tend to drone, like I do when I give speeches - so the game becomes boring very quickly). When they do leave the center, it's either a shock and feels like an awkward inconsistency, or it's such a slight variation that it barely seems interesting at all. I suppose this may be required in order to appeal to this massive audience of such diverse interests.
In a related example: what do you get when you try to combine so many people's interest in music together into one? You either get a loud cacophony of everything, or you get a single note. Hrmm. Maybe it would be a better idea to just give the players instruments to play with, rather than drag them along on a completely uninteresting experience?
So there is one special thing about MMOGs that isn't part of other genres: persistent player content, shared instantly. Players can interact with the world, leave their mark, and share it with other people instantly.
It's not so special when you think about it in terms of system and lore consistency; because with such strict laws to abide, there is little room for meaningful player expansion.
It becomes special when you realize that the setting and laws can change to allow the people to do what they truly desire, much the same with our economic system.
The solution is "mass amateurization," I'm sure. IE: we stop making everything a "professional" field and allow for more creative experimentation and expression. Open source.
On a similar note:
SPORE had a great idea: give people the ability to make stuff for the game without needing any extensive education to do so. The problems that made the game unattractive were the strict linear progression and an unrelated DRM issue from EA.
It is my opinion that the game could have done better if the content creation included "the whole game" down to the player progression and engine itself. That is to say, players should have been able to make their own games rather than content for an admittedly boring one.
You could call it the "DnD book model."
Ah. Ok, now I understand what you're getting at. My assumption was a 'save point' which are strategically located throughout different levels (I'm sure we all know these styles of games). You were talking about the games with pro-active saves. But basically in this example you go into a battle or senario thinking/expecting to not succeed and take steps necessary to prevent the 'sting' of your 'spanking'.
The question here would be, answering as honestly as possible: if you couldn't pro-actively save anytime you sensed danger, would danger not hold more meaning? Would you not put everything you have into the attempt?
To me, it's a classic sink or swim senario. And I refuse to sink.
Of course. My point was that that sense of danger isnt much lower when the sting doesnt hurt as much. Maybe its just how I feel, but regardless of the sting of defeat, nothing stings me more than just being defeated. The sting to me is just a 'kick while you're down'. I can deal with it, but do it enough times and it starts looking like a S&M routine more than a game to me.
Edit - For example, take L2 death penalty. Players can kill you, take XP and your gear. I played L2. I couldnt get past level 12 because a group of players kept ganking me almost everytime I played. Whenever I gathered some XP to level up, I'd end up ganked again and lost the XP. Needless to say, I didnt play L2 for long. Now, you can blame that on the players and not the game, but it was the game's rules that allowed what happened. Maybe I missed something because I was younger at the time and L2 was actually the first mmo game I ever experienced, but it wasnt a pleasant ride and I got off quickly.
Ah. Rather than ask another rhetoric, and risk coming off as patronizing, I'll just close the loop. A sense of danger leads to excitement. Endorphins. But yet you don't want to be 'kicked while you're down' so you minimize the punishment. 'Fun', for you, has at odds with itself: excitement and punishment. But yet they are linked. And we're right back at the start of the thread with the OP suggesting poker as an analogy.
Sadly, I can't comment or relate to L2. Guild Wars just felt... foreign to me. And no, not the devs being from another nation, but the gameplay. NC Soft hasn't hooked me, despite my efforts. I can't explain it.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
What lies at the core of this discussion is that there is a competing way to achieve excitement. A sense of challenge also leads to excitement. The harder the challenge the more exciting one gets about beating it.
Maybe it is the way people are wired differently. Personally things like rollercosters or sky diving don't really excite me that much. However, get me thinking about a problem of getting my character from point A to point B in the fastest way and I start buzzing. So a death penalty really has no payoff in terms of excitement and is simply a 'buzz killer'. Using the poker analogy it is like playing a game of poker and having to go to the bathroom every five minutes becasue of a bladder problem.
Yet still has all the challenge, and makes for a more enjoyable game at the end of the night for everyone.
You do however, need to really stop trying to perpetuate that all MMO's lack risk and challenge. It is simply untrue.
Yes, it was SO HARDCORE, and SO AWESOME, they (players) made an app for it.
That's just one of the many.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Well, that's your opinion and there is no right or wrong about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is fun and WoW, as popular as it is, does not cater to all.
I think that whether or not a thing is challenging is a seperate argument.
I would compare the people who don't like death penalties to those who save every 5 minutes in a single player game in case something bad happens. Facing the consequences of thier choices and actions is not fun for them. So they reload. It has nothing to do with challenge, that combat that they reload could be challenging everytime they attempt it.
To me, that's not fun. It would be like playing a game of chess and then asking your opponent if it would be ok to go back to move number 30 where you made a mistake. It would be like a baseball team asking if the 9th inning could be replayed because things didn't go thier way.
I prefer the need to carefully consider my choices and actions, and if I choose wrong, then there is a price to be paid.
Well, that's your opinion and there is no right or wrong about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is fun and WoW, as popular as it is, does not cater to all.
I think that whether or not a thing is challenging is a seperate argument.
I would compare the people who don't like death penalties to those who save every 5 minutes in a single player game in case something bad happens. Facing the consequences of thier choices and actions is not fun for them. So they reload. It has nothing to do with challenge, that combat that they reload could be challenging everytime they attempt it.
To me, that's not fun. It would be like playing a game of chess and then asking your opponent if it would be ok to go back to move number 30 where you made a mistake. It would be like a baseball team asking if the 9th inning could be replayed because things didn't go thier way.
I prefer the need to carefully consider my choices and actions, and if I choose wrong, then there is a price to be paid.
You can't have both "extremely hard actual conent" and "severe death penalty" at the same time.
That would be simply way too overdone and nobody would enjoy that.
Here, try to complete
this game
without saving at all and tell me how it works.
In MMOs, death penalty is compensated by other things such as easy-to-get gear, encounters with not too many gimmicks(or even classical tank and spanks, etc), a system that won't allow you to kill everyone without consequences.
Lineage 2 had a severe death penalty, you could lose both weeks worth of grinding an pieces of gear worth of months of grinding in a single death, from a rabbid PK group. See how that turned out after all.
Well, that's your opinion and there is no right or wrong about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is fun and WoW, as popular as it is, does not cater to all.
I think that whether or not a thing is challenging is a seperate argument.
I would compare the people who don't like death penalties to those who save every 5 minutes in a single player game in case something bad happens. Facing the consequences of thier choices and actions is not fun for them. So they reload. It has nothing to do with challenge, that combat that they reload could be challenging everytime they attempt it.
To me, that's not fun. It would be like playing a game of chess and then asking your opponent if it would be ok to go back to move number 30 where you made a mistake. It would be like a baseball team asking if the 9th inning could be replayed because things didn't go thier way.
I prefer the need to carefully consider my choices and actions, and if I choose wrong, then there is a price to be paid.
You can't have both "extremely hard actual conent" and "severe death penalty" at the same time.
That would be simply way too overdone and nobody would enjoy that.
Here, try to complete
this game
without saving at all and tell me how it works.
In MMOs, death penalty is compensated by other things such as easy-to-get gear, encounters with not too many gimmicks(or even classical tank and spanks, etc), a system that won't allow you to kill everyone without consequences.
Lineage 2 had a severe death penalty, you could lose both weeks worth of grinding an pieces of gear worth of months of grinding in a single death, from a rabbid PK group. See how that turned out after all.
I never said that a game should be impssible to complete without saving. I would not enjoy that game.
Again, I didn't say that there was anything wrong with your style of play, only that there are other people with different tastes.
Is Rush the greatest band ever simply because I say so? Are the Beatles the greatest just because they sold a lot of albums?
There is no "greatest", only what one personally thinks is great. Now, if I were all alone in my position, then one could rightly say that I am crazy. But clearly that is not the case.
What fun is winning when there is no possibility of losing or consequence to losing? Does one get a sense of accomplishment from that which has no consequence to or possibility of failure?
I suppose the answer to that quesion is yes. At least to the people who can't accept losing.
But here's the thing. There's a huge possibility of losing in some games that people call ez-mode but you don't get rammed by an(most of the time) artificial crockblock which is the death penalty. Disagree with me how much you want of this one, but I've seen many games where death penalty hides easy content with a few annoying gimmicks, instead of actual hard content from the 1st second you engage it.
Here's this example: Let's say there's this game where there's NO death penalty and a very unskilled party vs a very hard boss. Once one of party members die, they just respawn outside, bu they must wait until their group is completely wiped before jumping back.
Will they ever kill this boss? No, they can try how much they want, but after a night, they'll realise that they suck and they are simply not skilled enough to kill him.
This is a rather extreme example, but that doesn't mean games with an easier death penalty can't be challenging.
But here's the thing. There's a huge possibility of losing in some games that people call ez-mode but you don't get rammed by an(most of the time) artificial crockblock which is the death penalty. Disagree with me how much you want of this one, but I've seen many games where death penalty hides easy content with a few annoying gimmicks, instead of actual hard content from the 1st second you engage it.
Here's this example: Let's say there's this game where there's NO death penalty and a very unskilled party vs a very hard boss. Once one of party members die, they just respawn outside, bu they must wait until their group is completely wiped before jumping back.
Will they ever kill this boss? No, they can try how much they want, but after a night, they'll realise that they suck and they are simply not skilled enough to kill him.
This is a rather extreme example, but that doesn't mean games with an easier death penalty can't be challenging.
As I said, I think challenge is a whole different issue. You can reload the same combat time after time in single player and the combat that you are reloading can be challenging each time.
If there is no consequece to losing to that boss, then where is the satisfaction when you do beat the thing? If there is no consequence to soloing a dragon, then why not? Is that a scary monster?
I think many sort of forget about the RP in an mmorpg. Some of the more amazing things and accomplishments that I have personally seen were considered as such by me simply BECAUSE someone took a risk and won.
We often talk about risk vs reward on these boards. What exactly are you risking if you have nothing to lose?
I haven't forgotten to reply Plasuma. Christmas and all- I will when I get the time. Just checking in for you!
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
You get the massive satisfaction of beating a hard challenge. That's like the best buzz ever and it gets addictive. If you get used to it, then failing on the next challenge can put you right into a serious downer. That buzzkill is worse than any fake death penalty the game can put in.
Taking risks is easy, it's succeeding that it the hard part. One should reward success and not risk taking. If the same success can be obtained without taking a risk then that is the system that should be used.
Except, in any and all cases, people still achieve excitement from a sense of danger. There's no arguing this knowing the science behind endorphins. We are wired differently but still have this as a common trait. So the result, if you remove risk and danger, is a lessened experience.
It's all in dosage. There must be equal challenge excitement and equal risk excitement involved. 'Equal', agreed, is a term that is subjective to the individual...
But in poker, some people prefer risks of thousands, some just quarters. Where's the 'equal' for you, for everyone? What's the confidence interval that would include 95% of all gamers? The OP's suggestion fits the further you dive into the matter.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
You get the massive satisfaction of beating a hard challenge. That's like the best buzz ever and it gets addictive. If you get used to it, then failing on the next challenge can put you right into a serious downer. That buzzkill is worse than any fake death penalty the game can put in.
Taking risks is easy, it's succeeding that it the hard part. One should reward success and not risk taking. If the same success can be obtained without taking a risk then that is the system that should be used.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I just don't see your point of view and you don't see mine.
Point is, there is absolutely NO reason why both mindsets can't be catered to. And right now, they aren't.