Awesome post, nate. Yet another casual player who acknowledges that we don't want things handed to us and we don't want to marginalize hardcore content to net us easy rewards. All we want is the ability to participate in endgame content. We don't want the top tier gear, just something for our efforts.
Now that I think about it, this entire argument seems like the women's suffrage movement:
At one point in the United States, only men could vote. Women didn't like that and tried to make it possible for them to vote also. For some reason, men got pissed off and attacked women who wanted to vote.
In WoW, at one point, only hardcore players could participate in endgame content. Casual gamers didn't like that so we asked Blizzard to make it possible for us to have something to do endgame. For some reason, hardcore players got pissed and attacked casual gamers who wanted to have some form of endgame.
PS you are a care bear. Not just a carebear, but a carebear with sparkles.
Just as I thought. Let it be known, that Ihmotepp is just a troll with nothing worthwhile to say. Myself, Axehilt, Ilvaldyr, among others have all presented rational arguments why the topic of the thread is wrong and false on so many levels. Yet does he address our points? No! Instead, he replies only to people who present less rational arguments and people who agree with him. He also choose to name call, and post pictures of children's cartoon character's to further prove the intent of this thread and his maturity level.
You are a troll and an irrational person Ihmotepp. I've read many of your threads over the last year, and they all show how unhappy of a person you are. You constantly create threads to degrade other forum users, incite flame wars, and be disruptive. I have the right mind to report this thread, but people need to see what kind of person you are. Maybe then will you and your threads whither away to nothing.
Awesome post, nate. Yet another casual player who acknowledges that we don't want things handed to us and we don't want to marginalize hardcore content to net us easy rewards. All we want is the ability to participate in endgame content. We don't want the top tier gear, just something for our efforts.
Now that I think about it, this entire argument seems like the women's suffrage movement:
At one point in the United States, only men could vote. Women didn't like that and tried to make it possible for them to vote also. For some reason, men got pissed off and attacked women who wanted to vote.
In WoW, at one point, only hardcore players could participate in endgame content. Casual gamers didn't like that so we asked Blizzard to make it possible for us to have something to do endgame. For some reason, hardcore players got pissed and attacked casual gamers who wanted to have some form of endgame.
PS you are a care bear. Not just a carebear, but a carebear with sparkles.
Just as I thought. Let it be known, that Ihmotepp is just a troll with nothing worthwhile to say. Myself, Axehilt, Ilvaldyr, among others have all presented rational arguments why the topic of the thread is wrong and false on so many levels. Yet does he address our points? No! Instead, he replies only to people who present less rational arguments and people who agree with him. He also choose to name call, and post pictures of children's cartoon character's to further prove the intent of this thread and his maturity level.
You are a troll and an irrational person Ihmotepp. I've read many of your threads over the last year, and they all show how unhappy of a person you are. You constantly create threads to degrade other forum users, incite flame wars, and be disruptive. I have the right mind to report this thread, but people need to see what kind of person you are. Maybe then will you and your threads whither away to nothing.
I[m just kidding with you.
The problem is everyone really likes to play MMORPGs, becuase they are the most immersive form of online game.
Except for FPS game,s but those are to finger numbing to play constantly.
However, everyone likes something different when it comes to MMORPGs, all the way from Darkfall to WoW, and everthing int between.
You can't please everyone with the same game, so why do people try to act like this is even possible? I don't know.
There's nothing wroing with making games to please different audiences.
There's nothing wrong with liking certain features and disliking others.
Why should there be?
It would be nice to see a very wide range of games so that everyone has something to play, forced grouping, solo friendly, FFA PvP, PvE only, Raiding, no Raiding, hardcore, casual, sandboxes, themeparks, and everything you can think of.
But MMORPGs are expensive and hard to make, so for now we only have limited options.
Very few good games are released, no matter what features you like.
A crappy game is crappy, even if it has features you like. Even if you like a solo friendly WoW clone, very few good ones are released, and a lot of crappy ones.
eh, theres no reason for ppl to get so upset discussing a thread. Yes, this thread was made for the express purpose of starting a flame war. It succeeded. IMO, there are different types of gamers. A small percentage of "hardcore" gamers, like the OP, care about the mmorpgs they're playing. They get emotionally invested in their characters and need to be the best in that virtual world. They need to be not just the first to complete something, but the only ones with the skill to do it.
If anyone can get to the point they are, then it is a "dumbed down", "carebear", and/or "casual" game. WoW is the perfect example of the many examples of hardcore gamers. There are ppl that consider themselves hardcore that play that game and take it very seriously. They care about their status and ratings ingame. They race to be the first to beat new content, then race to beat others records.
There are gamers that play mmorpgs and enjoy them, in fact prefer them to other game types, yet don't get as emotionally invested and can't understand the anger and hate that gets heaped on them when they visit mmorpg boards.
Not all hardcore gamers hate "casuals" and feel the need to constantly post thread after thread about it. On this site you can probably count on one hand the names of the gamers that make the same types of threads over and over. As soon as the thread dies down...they make another. As long as there is that small percentage of vocal, angry and bitter "hardcore" gamer that find they can't be superior in a game anymore, this cycle will repeat.
It shouldnt surprise anyone that Ihmotepp is a troll. over 6000 posts in under two years should be an indication that all the free time he apparently has has done something to his mind.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
The problem is everyone really likes to play MMORPGs, becuase they are the most immersive form of online game.
Except for FPS game,s but those are to finger numbing to play constantly.
However, everyone likes something different when it comes to MMORPGs, all the way from Darkfall to WoW, and everthing int between.
You can't please everyone with the same game, so why do people try to act like this is even possible? I don't know.
There's nothing wroing with making games to please different audiences.
There's nothing wrong with liking certain features and disliking others.
Why should there be?
It would be nice to see a very wide range of games so that everyone has something to play, forced grouping, solo friendly, FFA PvP, PvE only, Raiding, no Raiding, hardcore, casual, sandboxes, themeparks, and everything you can think of.
But MMORPGs are expensive and hard to make, so for now we only have limited options.
Very few good games are released, no matter what features you like.
A crappy game is crappy, even if it has features you like. Even if you like a solo friendly WoW clone, very few good ones are released, and a lot of crappy ones.
Well, no. That's precisely the argument that's been made numerous times already. Just because a game can't please everyone, it doesn't mean it can't successfully please a lot of people. And you CAN have games that cater to both casual and hardcore gamers. Examples have been given (You've just simply ignored, trolled, or strawman'd them), and if something can be done once, it can be done a second time.
Your problem is that what YOU want is a game that caters to you, with zero-tolerance for alternate playstyles, that compromises the game of almost every single other group of MMO players aside from the hardcore FFA PvP group. So I don't know where you get off complaining about "compromise".
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
The problem is everyone really likes to play MMORPGs, becuase they are the most immersive form of online game.
Except for FPS game,s but those are to finger numbing to play constantly.
However, everyone likes something different when it comes to MMORPGs, all the way from Darkfall to WoW, and everthing int between.
You can't please everyone with the same game, so why do people try to act like this is even possible? I don't know.
There's nothing wroing with making games to please different audiences.
There's nothing wrong with liking certain features and disliking others.
Why should there be?
It would be nice to see a very wide range of games so that everyone has something to play, forced grouping, solo friendly, FFA PvP, PvE only, Raiding, no Raiding, hardcore, casual, sandboxes, themeparks, and everything you can think of.
But MMORPGs are expensive and hard to make, so for now we only have limited options.
Very few good games are released, no matter what features you like.
A crappy game is crappy, even if it has features you like. Even if you like a solo friendly WoW clone, very few good ones are released, and a lot of crappy ones.
Well, no. That's precisely the argument that's been made numerous times already. Just because a game can't please everyone, it doesn't mean it can't successfully please a lot of people. And you CAN have games that cater to both casual and hardcore gamers. Examples have been given (You've just simply ignored, trolled, or strawman'd them), and if something can be done once, it can be done a second time.
Your problem is that what YOU want is a game that caters to you, with zero-tolerance for alternate playstyles, that compromises the game of almost every single other group of MMO players aside from the hardcore FFA PvP group. So I don't know where you get off complaining about "compromise".
I wander how much of Ihmo's post count is just a single graphic, lol. He manages to make a point with no words. Whining about compromise and then whining about those whining about compromise gets no where really.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
You have strayed so far off topic yourself I don't think you even recognize what is being discussed.
The topic you posted was that any compromise hurts players who want challenge. I (as well as several other posters) disproved your theory with various examples. One example I used was the addition of hard mode raids in wow, which is a casual game that added more difficult content which is by its very nature a benefit to players who want more challenge. That doesn't make wow a hardcore game, but that isn't the topic of the thread and it most certainly does disprove your original topic that any compromise harms difficulty.
You are so bent on the whole hardcore vs casual that you have convinced yourself nothing is possible if it doesn't fall into either of your two predefined extremes. Working so hard to shoehorn everything into either black or white that you can't see all the grey area in between that most certainly can be mixed together to provide exactly what you are saying isn't possible. Honestly that is pretty much all you are doing is resorting to extremes as if they are the norm, which they aren't.
Is it easy to screw up that balance, yes. Can it be done with relative harmony in gameplay as long as the incentives are balanced, yes. Can a hardcore game have alternatives that don't harm those who want hardcore play, sure. Just like there are casual games with more difficult options.
No one is talking about giving top level raid rewards to solo quests except a few people who have no idea how that would decimate group gameplay. Exactly like you think removal of anything that doesn't force what you find enjoyable in a game will somehow ruin your experience. Both are completely closed minded views that simply don't see the massive area inbetween those two extremes as very viable and capable of living together very well if done right.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
You have strayed so far off topic yourself I don't think you even recognize what is being discussed.
The topic you posted was that any compromise hurts players who want challenge. I (as well as several other posters) disproved your theory with various examples. One example I used was the addition of hard mode raids in wow, which is a casual game that added more difficult content which is by its very nature a benefit to players who want more challenge. That doesn't make wow a hardcore game, but that isn't the topic of the thread and it most certainly does disprove your original topic that any compromise harms difficulty.
You are so bent on the whole hardcore vs casual that you have convinced yourself nothing is possible if it doesn't fall into either of your two predefined extremes. Working so hard to shoehorn everything into either black or white that you can't see all the grey area in between that most certainly can be mixed together to provide exactly what you are saying isn't possible. Honestly that is pretty much all you are doing is resorting to extremes as if they are the norm, which they aren't.
Is it easy to screw up that balance, yes. Can it be done with relative harmony in gameplay as long as the incentives are balanced, yes. Can a hardcore game have alternatives that don't harm those who want hardcore play, sure. Just like there are casual games with more difficult options.
No one is talking about giving top level raid rewards to solo quests except a few people who have no idea how that would decimate group gameplay. Exactly like you think removal of anything that doesn't force what you find enjoyable in a game will somehow ruin your experience. Both are completely closed minded views that simply don't see the massive area inbetween those two extremes as very viable and capable of living together very well if done right.
So anyone that doesn't like the same game you like is "close minded".
You have strayed so far off topic yourself I don't think you even recognize what is being discussed.
The topic you posted was that any compromise hurts players who want challenge. I (as well as several other posters) disproved your theory with various examples. One example I used was the addition of hard mode raids in wow, which is a casual game that added more difficult content which is by its very nature a benefit to players who want more challenge. That doesn't make wow a hardcore game, but that isn't the topic of the thread and it most certainly does disprove your original topic that any compromise harms difficulty.
You are so bent on the whole hardcore vs casual that you have convinced yourself nothing is possible if it doesn't fall into either of your two predefined extremes. Working so hard to shoehorn everything into either black or white that you can't see all the grey area in between that most certainly can be mixed together to provide exactly what you are saying isn't possible. Honestly that is pretty much all you are doing is resorting to extremes as if they are the norm, which they aren't.
Is it easy to screw up that balance, yes. Can it be done with relative harmony in gameplay as long as the incentives are balanced, yes. Can a hardcore game have alternatives that don't harm those who want hardcore play, sure. Just like there are casual games with more difficult options.
No one is talking about giving top level raid rewards to solo quests except a few people who have no idea how that would decimate group gameplay. Exactly like you think removal of anything that doesn't force what you find enjoyable in a game will somehow ruin your experience. Both are completely closed minded views that simply don't see the massive area inbetween those two extremes as very viable and capable of living together very well if done right.
So anyone that doesn't like the same game you like is "close minded".
Interesting.
You're really working hard at proving Daff's "black and white" comment correct.
You just don't see the middle-ground. You don't see that a game can have challenging group content and challenging solo content without detracting from either.
Blinkers, Ihmotepp. Blinkers.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
<Picture of black pot removed to reduce scrolling>
???
If you're going to put that image, could you at least quote the text to which such an image applies? Such as when I stated that I wanted hardcore play eliminated? Or some other hypocritical statement to that effect? You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I'm not aware of any hypocrisy on my part.
And I'm interested what you have to say to the earlier half of Daffid011's posting above. It clearly addresses your OP, and is a valid point.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
You have strayed so far off topic yourself I don't think you even recognize what is being discussed.
The topic you posted was that any compromise hurts players who want challenge. I (as well as several other posters) disproved your theory with various examples. One example I used was the addition of hard mode raids in wow, which is a casual game that added more difficult content which is by its very nature a benefit to players who want more challenge. That doesn't make wow a hardcore game, but that isn't the topic of the thread and it most certainly does disprove your original topic that any compromise harms difficulty.
You are so bent on the whole hardcore vs casual that you have convinced yourself nothing is possible if it doesn't fall into either of your two predefined extremes. Working so hard to shoehorn everything into either black or white that you can't see all the grey area in between that most certainly can be mixed together to provide exactly what you are saying isn't possible. Honestly that is pretty much all you are doing is resorting to extremes as if they are the norm, which they aren't.
Is it easy to screw up that balance, yes. Can it be done with relative harmony in gameplay as long as the incentives are balanced, yes. Can a hardcore game have alternatives that don't harm those who want hardcore play, sure. Just like there are casual games with more difficult options.
No one is talking about giving top level raid rewards to solo quests except a few people who have no idea how that would decimate group gameplay. Exactly like you think removal of anything that doesn't force what you find enjoyable in a game will somehow ruin your experience. Both are completely closed minded views that simply don't see the massive area inbetween those two extremes as very viable and capable of living together very well if done right.
So anyone that doesn't like the same game you like is "close minded".
Interesting.
You are doing it again. I am not calling you closed minded, because you don't like the same games I do. This is a perfect example of what I am saying about you forcing things to one extreme or the other.
You shoehorn me into the casual side of your argument and it just simply doesn't make any sense to you that I could possibly enjoy challenging types of group gameplay, which is very much the case. I would pull teeth for a decent group based mmo that had more difficulty, but in your haste to judge me instead of what I have said, you have closed your mind to the possibility of what actually exists. I fall in between casual and hardcore, which seems to be a concept that is beyond your grasp.
Just because I don't agree with your assesment of the situation doesn't mean I have sank to the level of "hardcore vs casual" that you try to force everything into.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Slavery. SOME people don't want to be slaves. So it would be better to have a 'choice'! Like not being a slave if you want.
How could this possibley benefit the slave owner? What does this person gain from slaves having a choice about whether they want their freedom?
- Just to illustrate the point that what you 'want' in your example is to take advantage of another without their consent, that is the major difference.
Now, I agree with you that each game should have perameters. If it is a PVP game, you should expect PVP. However, I also believe in democracy, and if the majority of that community wants the game to change focus, it is in the best interest of the company to listen to their subscriber base.
What you are really upset about is that FFA PVP or 'what you want' is not what the majority have wanted and therefore, your pet likes and dislikes don't get catered too at the same rate if at all.
I believe there is space for many types of PVP games.
I believe there is a space for many types of PVE games.
I believe there is a space for combo PVP/PVE games.
I believe those combo games make the most money, so they drive the industry standard. But the other games are there, they exist, they just aren't good enough at what you 'want' to allow the compromises to land your way or drive the industry forward.
I regret it myself personally, but I do understand why it is how it is.
A large tub filled with ice cream, having 5 flavours will only have problamatic spillover where the flavours meet. If you want chocolate but hate vanilla, you merely have to aim at the area you can obviously see the chocolate and not the areas where the chocolate and vanilla intersect.
The idea that you can't have a game that accomplishes this, ESPECIALLY when a game is not confined to a solid, limited container and likewise limited flavours, but rather can expand to hold an unlimited amount, is asinine.
I'm not sure why any of you are continuing to respond here when a statement can be made regarding the FACT that there is a mass grey continuum rather than the classic white/black dichotomy when it comes to gameplay and styles,
and get answered with; "So anyone that doesn't like the same game you like is "close minded". Interesting."
When the poster clearly wasn't laying claim to any particular game or play style, but was speaking, rather simply, to the close mindedness of not recognizing the continuum itself....
Comments
Awesome post, nate. Yet another casual player who acknowledges that we don't want things handed to us and we don't want to marginalize hardcore content to net us easy rewards. All we want is the ability to participate in endgame content. We don't want the top tier gear, just something for our efforts.
Now that I think about it, this entire argument seems like the women's suffrage movement:
At one point in the United States, only men could vote. Women didn't like that and tried to make it possible for them to vote also. For some reason, men got pissed off and attacked women who wanted to vote.
In WoW, at one point, only hardcore players could participate in endgame content. Casual gamers didn't like that so we asked Blizzard to make it possible for us to have something to do endgame. For some reason, hardcore players got pissed and attacked casual gamers who wanted to have some form of endgame.
Just as I thought. Let it be known, that Ihmotepp is just a troll with nothing worthwhile to say. Myself, Axehilt, Ilvaldyr, among others have all presented rational arguments why the topic of the thread is wrong and false on so many levels. Yet does he address our points? No! Instead, he replies only to people who present less rational arguments and people who agree with him. He also choose to name call, and post pictures of children's cartoon character's to further prove the intent of this thread and his maturity level.
You are a troll and an irrational person Ihmotepp. I've read many of your threads over the last year, and they all show how unhappy of a person you are. You constantly create threads to degrade other forum users, incite flame wars, and be disruptive. I have the right mind to report this thread, but people need to see what kind of person you are. Maybe then will you and your threads whither away to nothing.
oh look. Two carebears.
I[m just kidding with you.
The problem is everyone really likes to play MMORPGs, becuase they are the most immersive form of online game.
Except for FPS game,s but those are to finger numbing to play constantly.
However, everyone likes something different when it comes to MMORPGs, all the way from Darkfall to WoW, and everthing int between.
You can't please everyone with the same game, so why do people try to act like this is even possible? I don't know.
There's nothing wroing with making games to please different audiences.
There's nothing wrong with liking certain features and disliking others.
Why should there be?
It would be nice to see a very wide range of games so that everyone has something to play, forced grouping, solo friendly, FFA PvP, PvE only, Raiding, no Raiding, hardcore, casual, sandboxes, themeparks, and everything you can think of.
But MMORPGs are expensive and hard to make, so for now we only have limited options.
Very few good games are released, no matter what features you like.
A crappy game is crappy, even if it has features you like. Even if you like a solo friendly WoW clone, very few good ones are released, and a lot of crappy ones.
eh, theres no reason for ppl to get so upset discussing a thread. Yes, this thread was made for the express purpose of starting a flame war. It succeeded. IMO, there are different types of gamers. A small percentage of "hardcore" gamers, like the OP, care about the mmorpgs they're playing. They get emotionally invested in their characters and need to be the best in that virtual world. They need to be not just the first to complete something, but the only ones with the skill to do it.
If anyone can get to the point they are, then it is a "dumbed down", "carebear", and/or "casual" game. WoW is the perfect example of the many examples of hardcore gamers. There are ppl that consider themselves hardcore that play that game and take it very seriously. They care about their status and ratings ingame. They race to be the first to beat new content, then race to beat others records.
There are gamers that play mmorpgs and enjoy them, in fact prefer them to other game types, yet don't get as emotionally invested and can't understand the anger and hate that gets heaped on them when they visit mmorpg boards.
Not all hardcore gamers hate "casuals" and feel the need to constantly post thread after thread about it. On this site you can probably count on one hand the names of the gamers that make the same types of threads over and over. As soon as the thread dies down...they make another. As long as there is that small percentage of vocal, angry and bitter "hardcore" gamer that find they can't be superior in a game anymore, this cycle will repeat.
It shouldnt surprise anyone that Ihmotepp is a troll. over 6000 posts in under two years should be an indication that all the free time he apparently has has done something to his mind.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
Well, no. That's precisely the argument that's been made numerous times already. Just because a game can't please everyone, it doesn't mean it can't successfully please a lot of people. And you CAN have games that cater to both casual and hardcore gamers. Examples have been given (You've just simply ignored, trolled, or strawman'd them), and if something can be done once, it can be done a second time.
Your problem is that what YOU want is a game that caters to you, with zero-tolerance for alternate playstyles, that compromises the game of almost every single other group of MMO players aside from the hardcore FFA PvP group. So I don't know where you get off complaining about "compromise".
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
I wander how much of Ihmo's post count is just a single graphic, lol. He manages to make a point with no words. Whining about compromise and then whining about those whining about compromise gets no where really.
You have strayed so far off topic yourself I don't think you even recognize what is being discussed.
The topic you posted was that any compromise hurts players who want challenge. I (as well as several other posters) disproved your theory with various examples. One example I used was the addition of hard mode raids in wow, which is a casual game that added more difficult content which is by its very nature a benefit to players who want more challenge. That doesn't make wow a hardcore game, but that isn't the topic of the thread and it most certainly does disprove your original topic that any compromise harms difficulty.
You are so bent on the whole hardcore vs casual that you have convinced yourself nothing is possible if it doesn't fall into either of your two predefined extremes. Working so hard to shoehorn everything into either black or white that you can't see all the grey area in between that most certainly can be mixed together to provide exactly what you are saying isn't possible. Honestly that is pretty much all you are doing is resorting to extremes as if they are the norm, which they aren't.
Is it easy to screw up that balance, yes. Can it be done with relative harmony in gameplay as long as the incentives are balanced, yes. Can a hardcore game have alternatives that don't harm those who want hardcore play, sure. Just like there are casual games with more difficult options.
No one is talking about giving top level raid rewards to solo quests except a few people who have no idea how that would decimate group gameplay. Exactly like you think removal of anything that doesn't force what you find enjoyable in a game will somehow ruin your experience. Both are completely closed minded views that simply don't see the massive area inbetween those two extremes as very viable and capable of living together very well if done right.
So anyone that doesn't like the same game you like is "close minded".
Interesting.
You're really working hard at proving Daff's "black and white" comment correct.
You just don't see the middle-ground. You don't see that a game can have challenging group content and challenging solo content without detracting from either.
Blinkers, Ihmotepp. Blinkers.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
???
If you're going to put that image, could you at least quote the text to which such an image applies? Such as when I stated that I wanted hardcore play eliminated? Or some other hypocritical statement to that effect? You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I'm not aware of any hypocrisy on my part.
And I'm interested what you have to say to the earlier half of Daffid011's posting above. It clearly addresses your OP, and is a valid point.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
You are doing it again. I am not calling you closed minded, because you don't like the same games I do. This is a perfect example of what I am saying about you forcing things to one extreme or the other.
You shoehorn me into the casual side of your argument and it just simply doesn't make any sense to you that I could possibly enjoy challenging types of group gameplay, which is very much the case. I would pull teeth for a decent group based mmo that had more difficulty, but in your haste to judge me instead of what I have said, you have closed your mind to the possibility of what actually exists. I fall in between casual and hardcore, which seems to be a concept that is beyond your grasp.
Just because I don't agree with your assesment of the situation doesn't mean I have sank to the level of "hardcore vs casual" that you try to force everything into.
Slavery. SOME people don't want to be slaves. So it would be better to have a 'choice'! Like not being a slave if you want.
How could this possibley benefit the slave owner? What does this person gain from slaves having a choice about whether they want their freedom?
- Just to illustrate the point that what you 'want' in your example is to take advantage of another without their consent, that is the major difference.
Now, I agree with you that each game should have perameters. If it is a PVP game, you should expect PVP. However, I also believe in democracy, and if the majority of that community wants the game to change focus, it is in the best interest of the company to listen to their subscriber base.
What you are really upset about is that FFA PVP or 'what you want' is not what the majority have wanted and therefore, your pet likes and dislikes don't get catered too at the same rate if at all.
I believe there is space for many types of PVP games.
I believe there is a space for many types of PVE games.
I believe there is a space for combo PVP/PVE games.
I believe those combo games make the most money, so they drive the industry standard. But the other games are there, they exist, they just aren't good enough at what you 'want' to allow the compromises to land your way or drive the industry forward.
I regret it myself personally, but I do understand why it is how it is.
A large tub filled with ice cream, having 5 flavours will only have problamatic spillover where the flavours meet. If you want chocolate but hate vanilla, you merely have to aim at the area you can obviously see the chocolate and not the areas where the chocolate and vanilla intersect.
The idea that you can't have a game that accomplishes this, ESPECIALLY when a game is not confined to a solid, limited container and likewise limited flavours, but rather can expand to hold an unlimited amount, is asinine.
I'm not sure why any of you are continuing to respond here when a statement can be made regarding the FACT that there is a mass grey continuum rather than the classic white/black dichotomy when it comes to gameplay and styles,
and get answered with; "So anyone that doesn't like the same game you like is "close minded". Interesting."
When the poster clearly wasn't laying claim to any particular game or play style, but was speaking, rather simply, to the close mindedness of not recognizing the continuum itself....
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -