But it's clear that rather than searching for the underlying reasons behind design decisions, you've mostly just rejected accumulated knowledge based on a theory that all the designers who've come before you are wrong.
Or lazy.
Spot on. Great post.
The designers who started various designs were not lazy. They had good reasons and were successful in implementing their designs.
But those who clone and copy thoe designers, even a decade afterwards- THOSE are lazy and good for nothing.
Why you think boring, unrealistic, "Kill 10 Rats" should stay in MMORPG's because it is "accumulated knowledge based on complex design decisions" is far beyond me.
Being forced to be a Delivery Boy or Grind Kill Tasks is irrelevant whether it is "Good Design" or not...because it has NOW become a lazy excuse for content.
What was ONCE good design is now archaic and dull. Yet there hasn't been a new type of MMORPG since the release of Everquest 1 and Ultima Online. This was over a decade ago.
If making a good video game requires sticking to copying EQ1 and WoW because it is "good design" then I really don't want to make a good game. I want to make a "really crappy" one that everyone loves because it isn't a copy of WoW.
It would be perfectly fine for me to create a game many people enjoy, but all the pro-copy-WoW-because-it-is-successful-for-a-reason crowd thinks it's a crappy game. In fact, I encourage you to never touch anything I ever create. If my ideas are in any way successful, it would require you to stop and think that maybe this "accumulated wisdom" collecting dust after a decade of time might need to be retired to the bookshelf no one cares about.
All the designers who were original for their time were all right.
All the designers who copied them who came before me- yes- those ARE all wrong.
I see no reason why stating this is bad or incorrect in any way. Anyone can copy the success of others.
Richard Garriott made Ultima Online- a huge success and brilliant decision for its time. Ultima Online is archaic compared to modern day games-- but does that make Garriott wrong? No. Does it make him wrong because his next MMO wasn't a copy of WoW? Nope! It was very unique.
What about the creator of Alganon? That guy used every last drop of accumulated game design knowledge and experience. His game sure is doing great! Not only does it look like WoW, but it FEELS like a crappy version of WoW.
WOW!!! How awesome.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
I am not automatically rejecting your supreme wisdom and experience. I am rolling my eyes on how this is the 10th time you've stated it, as if it supercedes all thought, as if everyone is incapable of understanding this concept if they don't somehow prove to you their complex ideas are simple, and *yawn*
You asked what seemed like a genuine question. I provided the answer (that they're the result of tons of quest design over the years; although the true answer is more one of time-per-task, not kills-per-task.) You rejected that answer.
This hasn't been about fighting. My genuine interest is in seeing people (particularly those with game design interest) become better designers and know what makes a game work.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am not automatically rejecting your supreme wisdom and experience. I am rolling my eyes on how this is the 10th time you've stated it, as if it supercedes all thought, as if everyone is incapable of understanding this concept if they don't somehow prove to you their complex ideas are simple, and *yawn*
You asked what seemed like a genuine question. I provided the answer (that they're the result of tons of quest design over the years; although the true answer is more one of time-per-task, not kills-per-task.) You rejected that answer.
This hasn't been about fighting. My genuine interest is in seeing people (particularly those with game design interest) become better designers and know what makes a game work.
If your genuine interest is in seeing people become better designers, you would not support "Kill x Rats" dull quests.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
I am not automatically rejecting your supreme wisdom and experience. I am rolling my eyes on how this is the 10th time you've stated it, as if it supercedes all thought, as if everyone is incapable of understanding this concept if they don't somehow prove to you their complex ideas are simple, and *yawn*
You asked what seemed like a genuine question. I provided the answer (that they're the result of tons of quest design over the years; although the true answer is more one of time-per-task, not kills-per-task.) You rejected that answer.
This hasn't been about fighting. My genuine interest is in seeing people (particularly those with game design interest) become better designers and know what makes a game work.
If your genuine interest is in seeing people become better designers, you would not support "Kill x Rats" dull quests.
I support simple quest objectives which are complicated on the backend, not on the user.
Remember my previous post where I suggested keeping objectives simple but making them play out in a deeper, more interesting manner? (hint: it was the part of my previous post you chose to ignore.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games need to get away from "kill x mobs" (it rarely makes sense to kill 5 mobs and only 5 mobs when there's 20 attacking the village or whatever the situation is)... and rather go with "kill all the attackers" for a more event-based immersive approach. Making them somewhat public-quest-like (a la WAR) could help too.
When I think about Lore and Roleplaying, making sense of virtual worlds...I end up scratching my head over this one. Kill 5 wolves, slay 15 orcs, collect 15 orc scalps (by slaying 15 orcs...)
Why would anyone need this done? It is just non-sense.
Granted in the SEGA Shadowrun game, there was one Run (quest) where you killed Ghouls in the sewers for $$$. Depending on how much you negotiated out of the Johnson (quest giver) you got that much for killing Ghouls. It made sense though. They are an infestation that no one wants around. They are infested with a form of mutated HIV (actually some other viral strand, but you get the picture) which makes them braindead flesh-eaters. The fun part though wasn't that you killed (x) amount and returned. No. It actually made sense. "Kill as many as you can." We don't want 5 to disappear. We want them ALL to disappear. Afterall, if I'm going to pay you--- I should have the entire job done! Extermination is more like it, not "quell the population."
In WoW and other MMO's, it is always "quell the population" of wolves or boars. Quell? If they are bothering you...why not exterminate them entirely? Oh... because then your 10 alts can't complete the same quest. Oops. Talk about Lazy developers. My idea is to have these quests, but more similar to Shadowrun. For example... Lord Humphries is an NPC who has a quest to quell the population of wolves. This NPC's quest begins with 100 wolves payout. The zone he is in will spawn 100 wolves maximum before making them disappear. This spawn cap regenerates based on the # of wolves, back up to 100. If it ever reaches 0, the quest disappears and is no more. The quest is not "Kill [x] wolves for me" but instead "For every [x] wolves you slay for me, I will pay you [y] copper." If you want, kill all 100. If you just need 30 copper, just kill a few. Rewards pay out based on pre-quest negotiation (skill) and hallmarks of #'s you kill (killing 3 pays very little because they will regenerate, but killing 30 pays out much better. Killing all 100 or all remaining pays you a bonus.) Obviously though, these quests wouldn't be very common. Why should they be? They rarely make any sense.
I believe that developers were just beginning in the field so they made quests simple, and every developer after that one was just lazy.
GW2 will come with a great innovative system, instead of go out of town and kil 10 boars, you have a horde of boars raiding the village and actually destructing it and there you go to the rescue, fight them so they wont coz problems to the villagers.
I always thought a good story or an interesting twist can make a simple quest a great quest. It is not about the objective alone. As a long time GM from PnP games, I found that the locale of the encounter can change things dramatically and different locales bring a lot of variation to an otherwise routine battle. Enviromental hazards, a time constraint, stay in this area etc. are fun twists that make things fresh.
One of the most memorable parts of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was when the player had to support ground forces with an AC130. It was very simple mission but it was so different and so well made that it was one of the most memorable moments of the game. What they also did in the MW2, they had this cooperative mission where the players supported eachother in the same way. The guy on the ground had a "quest" as simple as "Go from point A to point B" and the guy in the AC130 had the "quest" to protect his buddy on the ground. A lot of fun from simple objectives.
So put the monsters on an ice field with fissures and other hazards. Put restrictions to available skills such as do not use fire unless you want to cause an avalanche, you cannot use ranged weapons because of the sandstorm, don't wake the dragon, one player must hold the magical torch and cannot fight etc. They make things interesting.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The problem is not with "Kill X" or "Collect X" the problem is with this whole Quest Driven syndrom we got. I am sick and tired of this shit it is everyhwhere. Everyone MMORPG every created post EQ2 and WoW has this bull shit Quest Driven mechanic.
I am waiting for an MMORPG to break this stupid standardized system and just let us play the world instead of the "quests".
I personally prefer to have an open ended "quest" where you can kill as many as you want and for each single item looted from the preys you get X Money and X Faction reward from an NPC. You can return with one "Orc Scalp" or two or ten or 100. It's up to you.
When I think about Lore and Roleplaying, making sense of virtual worlds...I end up scratching my head over this one. Kill 5 wolves, slay 15 orcs, collect 15 orc scalps (by slaying 15 orcs...)
Why would anyone need this done? It is just non-sense.
Granted in the SEGA Shadowrun game, there was one Run (quest) where you killed Ghouls in the sewers for $$$. Depending on how much you negotiated out of the Johnson (quest giver) you got that much for killing Ghouls. It made sense though. They are an infestation that no one wants around. They are infested with a form of mutated HIV (actually some other viral strand, but you get the picture) which makes them braindead flesh-eaters. The fun part though wasn't that you killed (x) amount and returned. No. It actually made sense. "Kill as many as you can." We don't want 5 to disappear. We want them ALL to disappear. Afterall, if I'm going to pay you--- I should have the entire job done! Extermination is more like it, not "quell the population."
In WoW and other MMO's, it is always "quell the population" of wolves or boars. Quell? If they are bothering you...why not exterminate them entirely? Oh... because then your 10 alts can't complete the same quest. Oops. Talk about Lazy developers. My idea is to have these quests, but more similar to Shadowrun. For example... Lord Humphries is an NPC who has a quest to quell the population of wolves. This NPC's quest begins with 100 wolves payout. The zone he is in will spawn 100 wolves maximum before making them disappear. This spawn cap regenerates based on the # of wolves, back up to 100. If it ever reaches 0, the quest disappears and is no more. The quest is not "Kill [x] wolves for me" but instead "For every [x] wolves you slay for me, I will pay you [y] copper." If you want, kill all 100. If you just need 30 copper, just kill a few. Rewards pay out based on pre-quest negotiation (skill) and hallmarks of #'s you kill (killing 3 pays very little because they will regenerate, but killing 30 pays out much better. Killing all 100 or all remaining pays you a bonus.) Obviously though, these quests wouldn't be very common. Why should they be? They rarely make any sense.
I believe that developers were just beginning in the field so they made quests simple, and every developer after that one was just lazy.
Becouse killing # of these is what you do in most games, mmos or dont.
Becouse killing # of these is what you do in most games, mmos or dont.
Yes, the more reasons to do something different. Doing exactly the same as everyone else is what will push your newly released game straight in the sales bin.
And most games does not really tell you to grind, that is what these quests are. There are mobs around and you can go and kill them, but no one asks you to kill a specific number of them.
Old Lineage had a better system for this, all orcs carried a totem and if you turn in those to a bounty hunter you would get some gold. I rather have no quests like this at all and fewer quests then being asked to do the same thing over and over.
Becouse killing # of these is what you do in most games, mmos or dont.
Yes, the more reasons to do something different. Doing exactly the same as everyone else is what will push your newly released game straight in the sales bin.
And most games does not really tell you to grind, that is what these quests are. There are mobs around and you can go and kill them, but no one asks you to kill a specific number of them.
Old Lineage had a better system for this, all orcs carried a totem and if you turn in those to a bounty hunter you would get some gold. I rather have no quests like this at all and fewer quests then being asked to do the same thing over and over.
Sounds a lot like it worked in EQ too.. And that leaves it up to the player how he wants to spend his time.
Axehilt, your posts have been pretty spot on throughout this entire thread. Excellent work, dude.
"Yawn... I get it. No one else has any experience with anything except for the developers of WoW and developers who copied WoW. Software programmers are rare, elite geniuses who are a part of an elite society of game design which can only be learned through a jedi master apprenticeship in the skull & bones society of the most prestigious of schools." - Emergence
Emergence, your posts are starting to get frighteningly similiar to Interesting's posts. Dismissing fact and professional experience - or worse, ridiculing someone for presenting fact and professional experience - because it's not what you want to believe really doesn't seem the best path to travel if you actually do want to build a better understanding of the topic you consistently look to discuss.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Axehilt, your posts have been pretty spot on throughout this entire thread. Excellent work, dude.
"Yawn... I get it. No one else has any experience with anything except for the developers of WoW and developers who copied WoW. Software programmers are rare, elite geniuses who are a part of an elite society of game design which can only be learned through a jedi master apprenticeship in the skull & bones society of the most prestigious of schools." - Emergence
Emergence, your posts are starting to get frighteningly similiar to Interesting's posts. Dismissing fact and professional experience - or worse, ridiculing someone for presenting fact and professional experience - because it's not what you want to believe really doesn't seem the best path to travel if you actually do want to build a better understanding of the topic you consistently look to discuss.
I am not dismissing fact and professional experience. Axehilt is not a professional, nor would I listen to him even if he was.
Why?
"15" is not a "scientific sweetspot" that has been proven to be the perfect number for kill quests. There is no such evidence, and even if there was it is irrelevant because...
Kill Quests being a "great game mechanic" proven successful throghout the ages is entirely an OPINION. What dictates success? A quality video game with depth which requires immersion and skill? A simpleminded grindfest with more subscribers and more money?
Yawn.
Passing off made-up research and quoting vague concepts as being "professional experience" is... classic internet. I do not dismiss facts, I dismiss made up "evidence" and vague opinion.
I am not looking to hear unexplainable vague concepts "You gotta make it simple, maaaaan!" or "15 is the scientific sweet spot, it's proven by FACT!"
You know what else is scientifically proven and supported by tons of evidence? That copying WoW is not original. My source to prove this is a scientific sweet spot? Hundreds of developers across the world and throughout the decade claim this to be true. Dismissing this evidence makes you a fool! /copy /repeat.
I've yet to see ANY "scientific evidence" and even if there was some, I have not yet seen how that is not a matter of opinion. Subscribers and profit revenue doesn't make a video game a good video game. Even if someone could proven 15 is scientifically proven to be the "sweet spot" of kill requirements, that still has nothing to do with ANYTHING solely for the fact that not even the successful games *which Axehilt claims provided this evidence) have everything as "15". WoW and every other MMO ranges from 1 to 30 kill numbers.
If this scientific evidence was so exclusive to making a good video game, then WoW would be a completely different game. Yet it is not. Scientifically proven my ass.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Axehilt, your posts have been pretty spot on throughout this entire thread. Excellent work, dude.
"Yawn... I get it. No one else has any experience with anything except for the developers of WoW and developers who copied WoW. Software programmers are rare, elite geniuses who are a part of an elite society of game design which can only be learned through a jedi master apprenticeship in the skull & bones society of the most prestigious of schools." - Emergence
Emergence, your posts are starting to get frighteningly similiar to Interesting's posts. Dismissing fact and professional experience - or worse, ridiculing someone for presenting fact and professional experience - because it's not what you want to believe really doesn't seem the best path to travel if you actually do want to build a better understanding of the topic you consistently look to discuss.
Someone who constantly lectures others (this is the 10th time he has told me the exact same thing) is insulting. I guess other people are incapable of getting it the 1st time...or the 2nd...or the 8th...
Someone who makes up random "facts" and claims they're scientifically proven to be the best, despite the fact no game has all of their quests at "15" this magicla number...
Someone who states vague advice and "game design concepts" which are not explained or emphasized on, or are over-explained and repeated but because of their simplicity I ignore them because they're very obvious concepts... (ex. Simplicity is important? Well duh... I knew that BEFORE Axehilt's lectures on simplicity as a design concept. I agreed with him it's a good area to focus on the FIRST time he lectured me.)
So forgive me if I "ridicule" him after the 10th time of hearing the same vague mystical "wisdom" he refuses to shut up about. If people didn't get it the 1st through 9th time, I see no reason why fighting with me about it while I ignore him makes him the hero and me the villain (even AFTER I agreed with him the FIRST time...)
I don't ignore wisdom and advice. I ignore people who repeat the same non-sense over and over after I agreed to it the first time solely because it's a very obvious concept that DOESNT NEED EXPLAINING.
And the concept of kill quests? That's entirely a matter of opinion if those are good game design or not.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Comments
The designers who started various designs were not lazy. They had good reasons and were successful in implementing their designs.
But those who clone and copy thoe designers, even a decade afterwards- THOSE are lazy and good for nothing.
Why you think boring, unrealistic, "Kill 10 Rats" should stay in MMORPG's because it is "accumulated knowledge based on complex design decisions" is far beyond me.
Being forced to be a Delivery Boy or Grind Kill Tasks is irrelevant whether it is "Good Design" or not...because it has NOW become a lazy excuse for content.
What was ONCE good design is now archaic and dull. Yet there hasn't been a new type of MMORPG since the release of Everquest 1 and Ultima Online. This was over a decade ago.
If making a good video game requires sticking to copying EQ1 and WoW because it is "good design" then I really don't want to make a good game. I want to make a "really crappy" one that everyone loves because it isn't a copy of WoW.
It would be perfectly fine for me to create a game many people enjoy, but all the pro-copy-WoW-because-it-is-successful-for-a-reason crowd thinks it's a crappy game. In fact, I encourage you to never touch anything I ever create. If my ideas are in any way successful, it would require you to stop and think that maybe this "accumulated wisdom" collecting dust after a decade of time might need to be retired to the bookshelf no one cares about.
All the designers who were original for their time were all right.
All the designers who copied them who came before me- yes- those ARE all wrong.
I see no reason why stating this is bad or incorrect in any way. Anyone can copy the success of others.
Richard Garriott made Ultima Online- a huge success and brilliant decision for its time. Ultima Online is archaic compared to modern day games-- but does that make Garriott wrong? No. Does it make him wrong because his next MMO wasn't a copy of WoW? Nope! It was very unique.
What about the creator of Alganon? That guy used every last drop of accumulated game design knowledge and experience. His game sure is doing great! Not only does it look like WoW, but it FEELS like a crappy version of WoW.
WOW!!! How awesome.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
You asked what seemed like a genuine question. I provided the answer (that they're the result of tons of quest design over the years; although the true answer is more one of time-per-task, not kills-per-task.) You rejected that answer.
This hasn't been about fighting. My genuine interest is in seeing people (particularly those with game design interest) become better designers and know what makes a game work.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If your genuine interest is in seeing people become better designers, you would not support "Kill x Rats" dull quests.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
I support simple quest objectives which are complicated on the backend, not on the user.
Remember my previous post where I suggested keeping objectives simple but making them play out in a deeper, more interesting manner? (hint: it was the part of my previous post you chose to ignore.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games need to get away from "kill x mobs" (it rarely makes sense to kill 5 mobs and only 5 mobs when there's 20 attacking the village or whatever the situation is)... and rather go with "kill all the attackers" for a more event-based immersive approach. Making them somewhat public-quest-like (a la WAR) could help too.
GW2 will come with a great innovative system, instead of go out of town and kil 10 boars, you have a horde of boars raiding the village and actually destructing it and there you go to the rescue, fight them so they wont coz problems to the villagers.
I always thought a good story or an interesting twist can make a simple quest a great quest. It is not about the objective alone. As a long time GM from PnP games, I found that the locale of the encounter can change things dramatically and different locales bring a lot of variation to an otherwise routine battle. Enviromental hazards, a time constraint, stay in this area etc. are fun twists that make things fresh.
One of the most memorable parts of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was when the player had to support ground forces with an AC130. It was very simple mission but it was so different and so well made that it was one of the most memorable moments of the game. What they also did in the MW2, they had this cooperative mission where the players supported eachother in the same way. The guy on the ground had a "quest" as simple as "Go from point A to point B" and the guy in the AC130 had the "quest" to protect his buddy on the ground. A lot of fun from simple objectives.
So put the monsters on an ice field with fissures and other hazards. Put restrictions to available skills such as do not use fire unless you want to cause an avalanche, you cannot use ranged weapons because of the sandstorm, don't wake the dragon, one player must hold the magical torch and cannot fight etc. They make things interesting.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The problem is not with "Kill X" or "Collect X" the problem is with this whole Quest Driven syndrom we got. I am sick and tired of this shit it is everyhwhere. Everyone MMORPG every created post EQ2 and WoW has this bull shit Quest Driven mechanic.
I am waiting for an MMORPG to break this stupid standardized system and just let us play the world instead of the "quests".
I personally prefer to have an open ended "quest" where you can kill as many as you want and for each single item looted from the preys you get X Money and X Faction reward from an NPC. You can return with one "Orc Scalp" or two or ten or 100. It's up to you.
Becouse killing # of these is what you do in most games, mmos or dont.
Yes, the more reasons to do something different. Doing exactly the same as everyone else is what will push your newly released game straight in the sales bin.
And most games does not really tell you to grind, that is what these quests are. There are mobs around and you can go and kill them, but no one asks you to kill a specific number of them.
Old Lineage had a better system for this, all orcs carried a totem and if you turn in those to a bounty hunter you would get some gold. I rather have no quests like this at all and fewer quests then being asked to do the same thing over and over.
Sounds a lot like it worked in EQ too.. And that leaves it up to the player how he wants to spend his time.
Axehilt, your posts have been pretty spot on throughout this entire thread. Excellent work, dude.
"Yawn... I get it. No one else has any experience with anything except for the developers of WoW and developers who copied WoW. Software programmers are rare, elite geniuses who are a part of an elite society of game design which can only be learned through a jedi master apprenticeship in the skull & bones society of the most prestigious of schools." - Emergence
Emergence, your posts are starting to get frighteningly similiar to Interesting's posts. Dismissing fact and professional experience - or worse, ridiculing someone for presenting fact and professional experience - because it's not what you want to believe really doesn't seem the best path to travel if you actually do want to build a better understanding of the topic you consistently look to discuss.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am not dismissing fact and professional experience. Axehilt is not a professional, nor would I listen to him even if he was.
Why?
"15" is not a "scientific sweetspot" that has been proven to be the perfect number for kill quests. There is no such evidence, and even if there was it is irrelevant because...
Kill Quests being a "great game mechanic" proven successful throghout the ages is entirely an OPINION. What dictates success? A quality video game with depth which requires immersion and skill? A simpleminded grindfest with more subscribers and more money?
Yawn.
Passing off made-up research and quoting vague concepts as being "professional experience" is... classic internet. I do not dismiss facts, I dismiss made up "evidence" and vague opinion.
I am not looking to hear unexplainable vague concepts "You gotta make it simple, maaaaan!" or "15 is the scientific sweet spot, it's proven by FACT!"
You know what else is scientifically proven and supported by tons of evidence? That copying WoW is not original. My source to prove this is a scientific sweet spot? Hundreds of developers across the world and throughout the decade claim this to be true. Dismissing this evidence makes you a fool! /copy /repeat.
I've yet to see ANY "scientific evidence" and even if there was some, I have not yet seen how that is not a matter of opinion. Subscribers and profit revenue doesn't make a video game a good video game. Even if someone could proven 15 is scientifically proven to be the "sweet spot" of kill requirements, that still has nothing to do with ANYTHING solely for the fact that not even the successful games *which Axehilt claims provided this evidence) have everything as "15". WoW and every other MMO ranges from 1 to 30 kill numbers.
If this scientific evidence was so exclusive to making a good video game, then WoW would be a completely different game. Yet it is not. Scientifically proven my ass.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Someone who constantly lectures others (this is the 10th time he has told me the exact same thing) is insulting. I guess other people are incapable of getting it the 1st time...or the 2nd...or the 8th...
Someone who makes up random "facts" and claims they're scientifically proven to be the best, despite the fact no game has all of their quests at "15" this magicla number...
Someone who states vague advice and "game design concepts" which are not explained or emphasized on, or are over-explained and repeated but because of their simplicity I ignore them because they're very obvious concepts... (ex. Simplicity is important? Well duh... I knew that BEFORE Axehilt's lectures on simplicity as a design concept. I agreed with him it's a good area to focus on the FIRST time he lectured me.)
So forgive me if I "ridicule" him after the 10th time of hearing the same vague mystical "wisdom" he refuses to shut up about. If people didn't get it the 1st through 9th time, I see no reason why fighting with me about it while I ignore him makes him the hero and me the villain (even AFTER I agreed with him the FIRST time...)
I don't ignore wisdom and advice. I ignore people who repeat the same non-sense over and over after I agreed to it the first time solely because it's a very obvious concept that DOESNT NEED EXPLAINING.
And the concept of kill quests? That's entirely a matter of opinion if those are good game design or not.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.