@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
While I would love that kind of gameplay, and is why I love Pen & Paper RPGs, I can understand why companies don't dothat for MMOs.
Mainly because if you are provided 1 task but 5 different ways to do it, the average player will only see 1/5th of the dev's work. It's more cost efficient to just do clear 1 beginning 1 end quests. especially when you are constantly making new content generally slower than people can burn through them. write up, mob placement, models, animations all take hours of work for 30 minutes of play, if that. Now one could use templated mobs and models, but that tends to make the world feel cheap.
Another aspect I think is that when MMORPGs came out, developers just translated single player style rpgs to an MMO format.
It's probably why I like sandbox more than theme, ans alot of the quests are started by players for players, even if they don't call them quests. when a guild leader tells the guild member he needs x, y, and z to build a base and the players go get it, that's a quest the devs didn't have to put in, they only had to make the resources, and ability to do it. when a guild storms another guilds castle, that's also a player driven quest that the devs didn't have to write, only create mechanics to di it.
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
*blinks*
I have had fun. What more "definition" do I need? <.< >.> <.<
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
I have to disagree. the game for an entertainer is to get money from patrons. The opposing force is the patron's willingness to give money. It's why there's always merchant minded people playing money maker with auction houses and trades. It's just a different form of game. The opposition in tetris is the blocks falling. Just a different type of game. A Rubic's cube is a puzzle game. the opposition is the cube itself.
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
*blinks*
I have had fun. What more "definition" do I need? <.< >.> <.<
Let me put it this way then. If it's relaxing and "just for fun", then it isn't a game with any depth. It's shallow and dull. Like fishing. If you want an mmorpg with innkeepers with any depth, you'll give innkeepers an opposing force that they'll have to deal with to make it a real game.
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
I have to disagree. the game for an entertainer is to get money from patrons. The opposing force is the patron's willingness to give money. It's why there's always merchant minded people playing money maker with auction houses and trades. It's just a different form of game. The opposition in tetris is the blocks falling. Just a different type of game. A Rubic's cube is a puzzle game. the opposition is the cube itself.
Well I'm not saying opposing force is what makes a game. I'm saying that without it a game like The Sims is dull and shallow to play.
Pong is a game with an opposing force, but that's about all it has. It has 2 controls. Up or down. Left or right. The goal is to stop the tennis ball from getting past you.
But back then it was huge. Opposing force is what made pong so amazing as well as it being the first video game.
It's the ability to be a loser that is so fun about real games. Or more specificaly to try and be the winner. Especially the ones that are challenging.
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
I have to disagree. the game for an entertainer is to get money from patrons. The opposing force is the patron's willingness to give money. It's why there's always merchant minded people playing money maker with auction houses and trades. It's just a different form of game. The opposition in tetris is the blocks falling. Just a different type of game. A Rubic's cube is a puzzle game. the opposition is the cube itself.
Well I'm not saying opposing force is what makes a game. I'm saying that without it a game like The Sims is dull and shallow to play.
Pong is a game with an opposing force, but that's about all it has. It has 2 controls. Up or down. Left or right. The goal is to stop the tennis ball from getting past you.
But back then it was huge. Opposing force is what made pong so amazing as well as it being the first video game.
Still disagree. Just because it's not exciting to you, doesn't mean it isn't exciting to someone else. I find Go to be more entertaining than chess. Both Go and chess are more in depth than any video game PVP including fps, or raid v raid fantasy.
Still Fishing can be hella exciting when your trying to catch something that you have to fight with for an hour, and you worry your fishing line will snap or catch on an underwater log etc. though this is RL fishing, while video game fish is rather sad when compared to the rea thing. Of course getting shot at in RL is much more exciting than in a game as well <.<
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
Do you only hang out with real life friends in some kind of fight club, punching one anothers face into something akin to hamburger in the name of fun? At Christmas time when you holiday with the family do you armwrestle your Dad for the holy mantle of "Almighty Turkey Carver", only to both be ambushed by your Gran, who PEW PEWs you with her high tech wrist lasers? When you go on a real life date is your idea of fun to take a girl out and beat the piss out of her .. or her you? Of course not.
Why should human interaction on the internet be less diverse and exciting than in real life? Why are you taking it so personally that some people feel that game makers could make better games by offering its players something more than another game of digital "Bang Bang! Lie down your'e dead", "Cowboys and Indians?"
The OP isn't saying that combat games suck. The OP isn't saying they need to make games with exclusivly no combat. He is simply expounding the idea that an online game world could be a richer and more satisfying place if companies stopped seeing combat as the ONLY possible way to have fun.
You yourself said something like that if a game could make playing a barkeeper more fun than a fighter then you would play it. What the OP is suggesting is that maybe game companies should start thinking about making a game where you could do BOTH.
So why don't you get down off your high horse and step off his plums, because he isn't recommending ruining your idea of fun.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
Do you only hang out with real life friends in some kind of fight club, punching one anothers face into something akin to hamburger in the name of fun? At Christmas time when you holiday with the family do you armwrestle your Dad for the holy mantle of "Almighty Turkey Carver", only to both be ambushed by your Gran, who PEW PEWs you with her high tech wrist lasers? When you go on a real life date is your idea of fun to take a girl out and beat the piss out of her .. or her you? Of course not.
Why should human interaction on the internet be less diverse and exciting than in real life? Why are you taking it so personally that some people feel that game makers could make better games by offering its players something more than another game of digital "Bang Bang! Lie down your'e dead", "Cowboys and Indians?"
The OP isn't saying that combat games suck. The OP isn't saying they need to make games with exclusivly no combat. He is simply expounding the idea that an online game world could be a richer and more satisfying place if companies stopped seeing combat as the ONLY possible way to have fun.
You yourself said something like that if a game could make playing a barkeeper more fun than a fighter then you would play it. What the OP is suggesting is that maybe game companies should start thinking about making a game where you could do BOTH.
So why don't you get down off your high horse and step off his plums, because he isn't recommending ruining your idea of fun.
@Plasmicredx: Sorry, but as they say, you don't "get it". Some things are not to overcome some opposing force. That is exactly WHY I liked to be Entertainer. It was the mix of relaxing and socializing. I had 2 chars, one for combat and one Entertainer, and I spent about 30% of my game time on the Entertainer. It was fun. We had a band and some dancers, we made gigs and gave parties visited by many people. It was just fun. There was no opposing force. You improved over time by offering your entertainment services. As a MMO gamer you don't HAVE to do that; but I wish MMOs would OFFER such non violent pathways, entertaining, diplomacy, being a detective or spy, crafting, trading, city building... anything but PEW PEW PEW ad nauseam.
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
I have to disagree. the game for an entertainer is to get money from patrons. The opposing force is the patron's willingness to give money. It's why there's always merchant minded people playing money maker with auction houses and trades. It's just a different form of game. The opposition in tetris is the blocks falling. Just a different type of game. A Rubic's cube is a puzzle game. the opposition is the cube itself.
Well I'm not saying opposing force is what makes a game. I'm saying that without it a game like The Sims is dull and shallow to play.
Pong is a game with an opposing force, but that's about all it has. It has 2 controls. Up or down. Left or right. The goal is to stop the tennis ball from getting past you.
But back then it was huge. Opposing force is what made pong so amazing as well as it being the first video game.
Still disagree. Just because it's not exciting to you, doesn't mean it isn't exciting to someone else. I find Go to be more entertaining than chess. Both Go and chess are more in depth than any video game PVP including fps, or raid v raid fantasy.
Still Fishing can be hella exciting when your trying to catch something that you have to fight with for an hour, and you worry your fishing line will snap or catch on an underwater log etc. though this is RL fishing, while video game fish is rather sad when compared to the rea thing. Of course getting shot at in RL is much more exciting than in a game as well <.<
Back to what you were saying about getting money from other players, the reason this isn't an opposing force is because you don't lose for playing. In fishing for relaxation purposes only, if you don't catch any fish, then you don't really care. There's no win or lose. You might say "well if you didn't catch any fish, you could say that's like losing!" Yes, yes you can say that, but it's an incredibly neutral loss.
Losing in darkfall or EVE for example could cost you a lot of items and gold and they win all of it. Losing in wow could cost you 30-45 minutes of another game to try and win more points. Losing in raids could cost another week of raiding to 'win' and down the raid boss. There's obviously a range of soft to hard losing and winning.
I'm saying that I am critical about swg entertainers because there is no real winner or loser in that. And if you put opposing force into an innkeeper class, for example, then that's good game design and I would definitely play it.
I find it peculiar that people will disagree with me but not defend The Sims' game design. If you want to truly debate, then come up with a good argument that it is good game design to make a game without an opposing force. Keep the thread civil.
Back to what you were saying about getting money from other players, the reason this isn't an opposing force is because you don't lose for playing. In fishing for relaxation purposes only, if you don't catch any fish, then you don't really care. There's no win or lose. You might say "well if you didn't catch any fish, you could say that's like losing!" Yes, yes you can say that, but it's an incredibly neutral loss.
Losing in darkfall or EVE for example could cost you a lot of items and gold and they win all of it. Losing in wow could cost you 30-45 minutes of another game to try and win more points. Losing in raids could cost another week of raiding to 'win' and down the raid boss. There's obviously a range of soft to hard losing and winning.
I'm saying that I am critical about swg entertainers because there is no real winner or loser in that. And if you put opposing force into an innkeeper class, for example, then that's good game design and I would definitely play it.
I find it peculiar that people will disagree with me but not defend The Sims' game design. If you want to truly debate, then come up with a good argument that it is good game design to make a game without an opposing force. Keep the thread civil.
I don't like the sims, so I don't defend it, that's all that amounts to. The sims to me is like someone looking after a virtual pet. I can get it from a caretaker perspective, as it's a caretaker heavy game, with loss being the character's perminant death ultimately. I'm not a caretaker type, though I know a lot of women and a few men that are.
Wish I could fish for relaxation. I always plan to eat what I catch. Hell hunting for recreation makes me sad. I eat what I hunt as well. Perhaps that's the native American in me not wanting to waste perfectly good food for sport. oh I'm rambling.
Back to the top, Getting money from other players is a game as you loose time and money for failing. There's a lot of ways to loose money and time. Even roleplaying the character is it's own reward when done right, people would give you even more cash. Or if all screwed up you wouldn't get any. Earning status with other players and being popular can be much harder than shooting and looting. Yes I'm ignoring the npc aspect, as I personally feel entertainers have more spice when played with other players. Seeing entertainers as only money mills is akin to you seeing fishing as only receation, there's more to it, but you're ignoring it for argument sake.
There's four major types of gamers: social, explorer, competative, merit
that's four different styles to aproach a game. I'm more of a explorer type as I like to see and try new things for the sake of having tried it. I don't particularly like to be in the battle, but I don't mind watching it while hidden, or playing recon for my side. Even recon itself is an explorer type set that doesn't get the good rewards full on PVPers do, but recon lets the leaders direct forces where they can win.
I'm taking it that you're more of a competative type?
You're saying that you can't use fishing for recreation as an example topic because you only fish to eat? Even if it's a video game?
I don't see playing an entertainer as a class in a game as a money mill as you say. I see it as a game. In The Sims, I don't think your characters can permanently die like you say either. As you can just recreate them again with no loss. But I don't actually play the sims either. From what I've seen everything about the sims is pretty much automatic.
A game has rules, interaction with an opposing force, number of players, a method of play, and desirable goals or outcome. Star wars galaxies entertainer has these, but not in full.
An entertainer in swg has a desirable outcome - socialization - you get some players to come watch you and get their character relaxed and then they tip you for getting a combat buff and talk to you. It also has an undesirable outcome which is no one cares to tip you or even come socialize and watch you play. The game places the characters in charge of giving tips and coming to see you, making your outcome entirely dependent on no guarrantee that they will do so (bad design).
Entertainer has a method of play. You can just find an inn or a place to stand and start doing emotes. You can be a dancer or play music. So it's not a deep method of play and it doesn't get much deeper than this. That's all there really is to it. Fighting in WoW on the other hand is way deeper than this.
Entertainer has a set of rules. You can't entertain people out of reach on another planet for instance. You have to be in the room with a person for them to see and hear you. But there is no real consequences for any actions you can take as an entertainer from the game unless you make other players mad, as they can choose not to tip you. But they may choose not to tip you no matter what. Again this is why tipping as a desirable outcome is bad game design.
Entertainer is pretty much always two or more players. You can solo grind your musician or dancing skills, but this pretty much amounts to AFK macro grinding in a location no one will find you because there's no difficulty to it so you'll be bored by yourself. If you macro AFK grind in public, people will get all "that guy is botting! I will not tip botters rawr!" With this music/dancing system it's better off two or more players but there won't always be a 2nd player with you. Plus after you buff a player they leave as that was their whole reason for being there.
The only opposing force is in trying to get the good outcome, which I already said is dependent on other players tipping you. This isn't a good opposing force because of the reasons already given and the fact that the opposing force doesn't try to make you lose in any way. You aren't really interacting with anything except the game's controls and the chat box in order to try and get people to talk and tip you. You're not fighting artificial intelligence or other players.
I'm talking about what a game is. It doesn't matter what type of gamer I am. I like fishing for relaxation purposes sometimes. I have been in dozens of online guilds with the same groups of people and new groups of people and they became good online friends outsides of games ever since. That just isn't a full game. It's just a facet of a game. Again, if you want a real innkeeper class, put ALL facets that make a game into it. Not base it entirely on player's whims with an opposing force that is hardly existent and a simple method of play.
Anyway, these are all game design concepts, and as there are many different game developers with conflicting ideas on what makes a game, I think at bare minimum a game should at least have a solid foundation of these five characteristics. If it has only weak facets of them, then this makes the game weak.
Nay. I'm saying don't discount other aspects. Don't discount the social aspect of the class, as some people enjoy it. It encourages roleplaying IMO. which is rather fun to do imo. Might not be your cup o tea, but it's older than P&P and stems off of acting. I've tried P&P RPing, and LARPing. Not so much a LARP fan, but I can get into P&P RPing. Can't simplying playing a role that you can't do IRL be reward enough? For some people trying to be popular is quite rewarding. I would say failure is generally quantified by what the goal of the player is. If they want to be popular, but just can't do it while other have, that's failure. If they want to RP and get huge tips but instead drive players away, that's a failure. Alot of the opposition to the entertainer is the players mindset, ability, and social skills vs other player's desire for, and opinions of, entertainment.
Location, timing, social skills, and character ability all play a role in getting cash, or failing. Hell a musician IRL have to be good at all those and look good while doing it, or have people help them to earn money by playing. Which is harder than in game as you don't get buffs from music IRL. I only say it out of being a manager/accountant/assistant to a musician before IRL. That shit's rough. Musicians, I sware managing one is like being a babysitter to a drug addict sometimes >.<
Nay. I'm saying don't discount other aspects. Don't discount the social aspect of the class, as some people enjoy it. It encourages roleplaying IMO. which is rather fun to do imo. Might not be your cup o tea, but it's older than P&P and stems off of acting. I've tried P&P RPing, and LARPing. Not so much a LARP fan, but I can get into P&P RPing. Can't simplying playing a role that you can't do IRL be reward enough? For some people trying to be popular is quite rewarding. I would say failure is generally quantified by what the goal of the player is. If they want to be popular, but just can't do it while other have, that's failure. If they want to RP and get huge tips but instead drive players away, that's a failure. Alot of the opposition to the entertainer is the players mindset, ability, and social skills vs other player's desire for, and opinions of, entertainment.
Location, timing, social skills, and character ability all play a role in getting cash, or failing. Hell a musician IRL have to be good at all those and look good while doing it, or have people help them to earn money by playing. Which is harder than in game as you don't get buffs from music IRL. I only say it out of being a manager/accountant/assistant to a musician before IRL. That shit's rough. Musicians, I sware managing one is like being a babysitter to a drug addict sometimes >.<
I didn't discount the social aspect. The social aspect is inside of the desirable outcome. And the UNdesirable outcome is if the other players don't socialize with you.
The point is that with the swg entertainer, it was a weak game because it had a weak foundation in the five characteristics.
A strong game isn't going to make you have to pretend that a goal is there. What you're saying about making my own goals for a game is like saying if a game fails with bad game design, then I should pretend that the good game design is actually there. If I want to do that, I will, but if I don't, then I just won't play that game. That's what the majority of people will do when they are offered a game with bad game design.
You even say yourself that a musician in real life has a huge opposing force factor to deal with like making money. If a real life musician plays bad, then they have a very real problem in that they won't be able to pay for things. Making money, learning new songs/dances, and socializing is about the only things an entertainer in swg can do that is related to what you can also do in real life. What ISN'T the same is that there's no consequence for not getting any tips in swg. So if you are going to make a living breathing game world out of swg, then you will have to give an entertainer a good strong opposing force to interact with, like if you don't get enough tips every day your character will lose something important. This way you will actually have to play hard at being an entertainer so you can work for something. You also have to make playing instruments or dancing more fun than just pushing 1 button every 5-10 seconds to make your character keep playing/dancing. Playing an instrument and dancing should take a lot of practice of experience and knowledge. Just like it does in real life.
Of course sword fighting in real life takes far more experience and knowledge to do than playing a warrior in wow, but if it took the same amount then players wouldn't think it's a very fun video game. There's a range of difficulty. I would say pushing a button every 5-10 seconds to make your character play a new tune or dance in swg is about brain dead difficulty, where in wow a warrior that has to know how to switch stances from battle stance to berserker stance to defensive stance, know 20 buttons for each stance, when to use them, know how they work and what they do, use interrupts effectively by switching to one-hand with shield and back to two-hand, and be circle strafing your enemies all while you have focus target macros for a couple or more would be more like hard difficulty. No, it's not insane or nightmare difficulty like being a real life swordsman would be, it's just plain old fashioned "kinda hard." It doesn't take a leet gamer to play a wow warrior or any class in wow really, it just takes a level of practice that is considered slightly challenging.
If I wanted to play an innkeeper in wow, I would want the game to be almost as challenging as playing a real innkeeper in real life.
There's a quest in wow for players who learn first aid. You have to speedily click to provide first aid to wounded people as they come in or they will die. This is a neutral opposing force (like getting tips in swg) that people will actually die if you do not attend to them fast enough, but no real lose factor other than you might have to do it again (because you don't care about inanimate NPCs dying in a video game that will have no effect on your character in the game). Imagine if you fail you have to level up through several levels of first aid again. This would make you not want to mess up and take it a little more seriously. The reward is that you gain more powerful bandaid skills. Now just imagine a game like this for an innkeeper but with more depth and more things you have to do that's a lot more interactive with more win and lose situations other than standing in an inn's doorway offering hearth binds to other players for innkeeper points. Then it would be good game design.
If you want a "social game" only then don't play games with any interaction with an opposing force basically. Opposing forces tend to make you have to play the game instead of chat. There's virtual chat room or non-competitive games for that.
If you want a real breathing world simulation, then it will always need to have some opposing force factor in it (just like real life has). If you're going to have a really really real mmo world like Dawn, then have giving birth to actual characters, aging, permanent character death, and the like, all of which turn out to be opposing factors because the player playing your kid might try to grief their parents for fun.
Nay. I'm saying don't discount other aspects. Don't discount the social aspect of the class, as some people enjoy it. It encourages roleplaying IMO. which is rather fun to do imo. Might not be your cup o tea, but it's older than P&P and stems off of acting. I've tried P&P RPing, and LARPing. Not so much a LARP fan, but I can get into P&P RPing. Can't simplying playing a role that you can't do IRL be reward enough? For some people trying to be popular is quite rewarding. I would say failure is generally quantified by what the goal of the player is. If they want to be popular, but just can't do it while other have, that's failure. If they want to RP and get huge tips but instead drive players away, that's a failure. Alot of the opposition to the entertainer is the players mindset, ability, and social skills vs other player's desire for, and opinions of, entertainment.
Location, timing, social skills, and character ability all play a role in getting cash, or failing. Hell a musician IRL have to be good at all those and look good while doing it, or have people help them to earn money by playing. Which is harder than in game as you don't get buffs from music IRL. I only say it out of being a manager/accountant/assistant to a musician before IRL. That shit's rough. Musicians, I sware managing one is like being a babysitter to a drug addict sometimes >.<
I didn't discount the social aspect. The social aspect is inside of the desirable outcome. And the UNdesirable outcome is if the other players don't socialize with you.
The point is that with the swg entertainer, it was a weak game because it had a weak foundation in the five characteristics.
A strong game isn't going to make you have to pretend that a goal is there. What you're saying about making my own goals for a game is like saying if a game fails with bad game design, then I should pretend that the good game design is actually there. If I want to do that, I will, but if I don't, then I just won't play that game. That's what the majority of people will do when they are offered a game with bad game design.
You even say yourself that a musician in real life has a huge opposing force factor to deal with like making money. If a real life musician plays bad, then they have a very real problem in that they won't be able to pay for things. Making money, learning new songs/dances, and socializing is about the only things an entertainer in swg can do that is related to what you can also do in real life. What ISN'T the same is that there's no consequence for not getting any tips in swg. So if you are going to make a living breathing game world out of swg, then you will have to give an entertainer a good strong opposing force to interact with, like if you don't get enough tips every day your character will lose something important. This way you will actually have to play hard at being an entertainer so you can work for something. You also have to make playing instruments or dancing more fun than just pushing 1 button every 5-10 seconds to make your character keep playing/dancing. Playing an instrument and dancing should take a lot of practice of experience and knowledge. Just like it does in real life.
Of course sword fighting in real life takes far more experience and knowledge to do than playing a warrior in wow, but if it took the same amount then players wouldn't think it's a very fun video game. There's a range of difficulty. I would say pushing a button every 5-10 seconds to make your character play a new tune or dance in swg is about brain dead difficulty, where in wow a warrior that has to know how to switch stances from battle stance to berserker stance to defensive stance, know 20 buttons for each stance, when to use them, know how they work and what they do, use interrupts effectively by switching to one-hand with shield and back to two-hand, and be circle strafing your enemies all while you have focus target macros for a couple or more would be more like hard difficulty. No, it's not insane or nightmare difficulty like being a real life swordsman would be, it's just plain old fashioned "kinda hard." It doesn't take a leet gamer to play a wow warrior or any class in wow really, it just takes a level of practice that is considered slightly challenging.
If I wanted to play an innkeeper in wow, I would want the game to be almost as challenging as playing a real innkeeper in real life.
There's a quest in wow for players who learn first aid. You have to speedily click to provide first aid to wounded people as they come in or they will die. This is a neutral opposing force (like getting tips in swg) that people will actually die if you do not attend to them fast enough, but no real lose factor other than you might have to do it again (because you don't care about inanimate NPCs dying in a video game that will have no effect on your character in the game). Imagine if you fail you have to level up through several levels of first aid again. This would make you not want to mess up and take it a little more seriously. The reward is that you gain more powerful bandaid skills. Now just imagine a game like this for an innkeeper but with more depth and more things you have to do that's a lot more interactive with more win and lose situations other than standing in an inn's doorway offering hearth binds to other players for innkeeper points. Then it would be good game design.
If you want a "social game" only then don't play games with any interaction with an opposing force basically. Opposing forces tend to make you have to play the game instead of chat. There's virtual chat room or non-competitive games for that.
If you want a real breathing world simulation, then it will always need to have some opposing force factor in it. If you're going to have a really really real mmo world like Dawn, then have giving birth to actual characters, aging, permanent character death, and the like, all of which turn out to be opposing factors because the player playing your kid might try to pvp their parents.
Every post you have, you stated there needs to be an opposing force or some form of consequences. For you this may be true. However not everyone needs this to have fun. Or perhaps they can decide for themselves what the opposing force is.
For example my Girl friend playes Eq2. All she does is decorates houses. After 6 years playing she is still only level 1. There is no win or loss for her. Yet she has a ball. Her opposing force is herself. When she is not happy with how something looks, she will tear it down and start all over again.
What the Op is saying is that MMORPG's can have MORE than just killing. He is not saying take that away. just add more for those that don't like to do what you like. There is no reason why someone being an inn keeper can't be fun for those that like to manage something.
People in general enjoy different things. Companies would do very well by incorperating many aspects to the game than just what we have now.
I totally agree with the OP...and I will advertise EVE Online. There are so many aspects of that game that doesn't require you to kill anything at all.
Currently Play: ? Occasionally Play: Champions, Pirates of the Burning Sea, WOW, EVE ONLINE
Nay. I'm saying don't discount other aspects. Don't discount the social aspect of the class, as some people enjoy it. It encourages roleplaying IMO. which is rather fun to do imo. Might not be your cup o tea, but it's older than P&P and stems off of acting. I've tried P&P RPing, and LARPing. Not so much a LARP fan, but I can get into P&P RPing. Can't simplying playing a role that you can't do IRL be reward enough? For some people trying to be popular is quite rewarding. I would say failure is generally quantified by what the goal of the player is. If they want to be popular, but just can't do it while other have, that's failure. If they want to RP and get huge tips but instead drive players away, that's a failure. Alot of the opposition to the entertainer is the players mindset, ability, and social skills vs other player's desire for, and opinions of, entertainment.
Location, timing, social skills, and character ability all play a role in getting cash, or failing. Hell a musician IRL have to be good at all those and look good while doing it, or have people help them to earn money by playing. Which is harder than in game as you don't get buffs from music IRL. I only say it out of being a manager/accountant/assistant to a musician before IRL. That shit's rough. Musicians, I sware managing one is like being a babysitter to a drug addict sometimes >.<
I didn't discount the social aspect. The social aspect is inside of the desirable outcome. And the UNdesirable outcome is if the other players don't socialize with you.
The point is that with the swg entertainer, it was a weak game because it had a weak foundation in the five characteristics.
A strong game isn't going to make you have to pretend that a goal is there. What you're saying about making my own goals for a game is like saying if a game fails with bad game design, then I should pretend that the good game design is actually there. If I want to do that, I will, but if I don't, then I just won't play that game. That's what the majority of people will do when they are offered a game with bad game design.
You even say yourself that a musician in real life has a huge opposing force factor to deal with like making money. If a real life musician plays bad, then they have a very real problem in that they won't be able to pay for things. Making money, learning new songs/dances, and socializing is about the only things an entertainer in swg can do that is related to what you can also do in real life. What ISN'T the same is that there's no consequence for not getting any tips in swg. So if you are going to make a living breathing game world out of swg, then you will have to give an entertainer a good strong opposing force to interact with, like if you don't get enough tips every day your character will lose something important. This way you will actually have to play hard at being an entertainer so you can work for something. You also have to make playing instruments or dancing more fun than just pushing 1 button every 5-10 seconds to make your character keep playing/dancing. Playing an instrument and dancing should take a lot of practice of experience and knowledge. Just like it does in real life.
Of course sword fighting in real life takes far more experience and knowledge to do than playing a warrior in wow, but if it took the same amount then players wouldn't think it's a very fun video game. There's a range of difficulty. I would say pushing a button every 5-10 seconds to make your character play a new tune or dance in swg is about brain dead difficulty, where in wow a warrior that has to know how to switch stances from battle stance to berserker stance to defensive stance, know 20 buttons for each stance, when to use them, know how they work and what they do, use interrupts effectively by switching to one-hand with shield and back to two-hand, and be circle strafing your enemies all while you have focus target macros for a couple or more would be more like hard difficulty. No, it's not insane or nightmare difficulty like being a real life swordsman would be, it's just plain old fashioned "kinda hard." It doesn't take a leet gamer to play a wow warrior or any class in wow really, it just takes a level of practice that is considered slightly challenging.
If I wanted to play an innkeeper in wow, I would want the game to be almost as challenging as playing a real innkeeper in real life.
There's a quest in wow for players who learn first aid. You have to speedily click to provide first aid to wounded people as they come in or they will die. This is a neutral opposing force (like getting tips in swg) that people will actually die if you do not attend to them fast enough, but no real lose factor other than you might have to do it again (because you don't care about inanimate NPCs dying in a video game that will have no effect on your character in the game). Imagine if you fail you have to level up through several levels of first aid again. This would make you not want to mess up and take it a little more seriously. The reward is that you gain more powerful bandaid skills. Now just imagine a game like this for an innkeeper but with more depth and more things you have to do that's a lot more interactive with more win and lose situations other than standing in an inn's doorway offering hearth binds to other players for innkeeper points. Then it would be good game design.
If you want a "social game" only then don't play games with any interaction with an opposing force basically. Opposing forces tend to make you have to play the game instead of chat. There's virtual chat room or non-competitive games for that.
If you want a real breathing world simulation, then it will always need to have some opposing force factor in it. If you're going to have a really really real mmo world like Dawn, then have giving birth to actual characters, aging, permanent character death, and the like, all of which turn out to be opposing factors because the player playing your kid might try to pvp their parents.
Every post you have, you stated there needs to be an opposing force or some form of consequences. For you this may be true. However not everyone needs this to have fun. Or perhaps they can decide for themselves what the opposing force is.
For example my Girl friend playes Eq2. All she does is decorates houses. After 6 years playing she is still only level 1. There is no win or loss for her. Yet she has a ball. Her opposing force is herself. When she is not happy with how something looks, she will tear it down and start all over again.
What the Op is saying is that MMORPG's can have MORE than just killing. He is not saying take that away. just add more for those that don't like to do what you like. There is no reason why someone being an inn keeper can't be fun for those that like to manage something.
People in general enjoy different things. Companies would do very well by incorperating many aspects to the game than just what we have now.
Edit... By the way I totally agree with the Op.
For it to be a game, yes. Recreation and entertainment can be other things like watching movies. Is a movie a game? No. But are movies and games both entertainment? Yes!
Enjoyment is something entirely different. I'm talking about game design. This goes into what a game is. If you don't believe me, go buy a game design book, read it, then come back and tell me it doesn't talk about characteristics such as an opposing force.
What I have said doesn't mean your sister can't be find enjoyment or entertainment from a simple house decoration game. It means that opposing force is an important facet of every part of life and if you weaken it, then the game design becomes weak. I said that the entertainer class in swg is weak.
Nay. I'm saying don't discount other aspects. Don't discount the social aspect of the class, as some people enjoy it. It encourages roleplaying IMO. which is rather fun to do imo. Might not be your cup o tea, but it's older than P&P and stems off of acting. I've tried P&P RPing, and LARPing. Not so much a LARP fan, but I can get into P&P RPing. Can't simplying playing a role that you can't do IRL be reward enough? For some people trying to be popular is quite rewarding. I would say failure is generally quantified by what the goal of the player is. If they want to be popular, but just can't do it while other have, that's failure. If they want to RP and get huge tips but instead drive players away, that's a failure. Alot of the opposition to the entertainer is the players mindset, ability, and social skills vs other player's desire for, and opinions of, entertainment.
Location, timing, social skills, and character ability all play a role in getting cash, or failing. Hell a musician IRL have to be good at all those and look good while doing it, or have people help them to earn money by playing. Which is harder than in game as you don't get buffs from music IRL. I only say it out of being a manager/accountant/assistant to a musician before IRL. That shit's rough. Musicians, I sware managing one is like being a babysitter to a drug addict sometimes >.<
I didn't discount the social aspect. The social aspect is inside of the desirable outcome. And the UNdesirable outcome is if the other players don't socialize with you.
The point is that with the swg entertainer, it was a weak game because it had a weak foundation in the five characteristics.
A strong game isn't going to make you have to pretend that a goal is there. What you're saying about making my own goals for a game is like saying if a game fails with bad game design, then I should pretend that the good game design is actually there. If I want to do that, I will, but if I don't, then I just won't play that game. That's what the majority of people will do when they are offered a game with bad game design.
You even say yourself that a musician in real life has a huge opposing force factor to deal with like making money. If a real life musician plays bad, then they have a very real problem in that they won't be able to pay for things. Making money, learning new songs/dances, and socializing is about the only things an entertainer in swg can do that is related to what you can also do in real life. What ISN'T the same is that there's no consequence for not getting any tips in swg. So if you are going to make a living breathing game world out of swg, then you will have to give an entertainer a good strong opposing force to interact with, like if you don't get enough tips every day your character will lose something important. This way you will actually have to play hard at being an entertainer so you can work for something. You also have to make playing instruments or dancing more fun than just pushing 1 button every 5-10 seconds to make your character keep playing/dancing. Playing an instrument and dancing should take a lot of practice of experience and knowledge. Just like it does in real life.
Of course sword fighting in real life takes far more experience and knowledge to do than playing a warrior in wow, but if it took the same amount then players wouldn't think it's a very fun video game. There's a range of difficulty. I would say pushing a button every 5-10 seconds to make your character play a new tune or dance in swg is about brain dead difficulty, where in wow a warrior that has to know how to switch stances from battle stance to berserker stance to defensive stance, know 20 buttons for each stance, when to use them, know how they work and what they do, use interrupts effectively by switching to one-hand with shield and back to two-hand, and be circle strafing your enemies all while you have focus target macros for a couple or more would be more like hard difficulty. No, it's not insane or nightmare difficulty like being a real life swordsman would be, it's just plain old fashioned "kinda hard." It doesn't take a leet gamer to play a wow warrior or any class in wow really, it just takes a level of practice that is considered slightly challenging.
If I wanted to play an innkeeper in wow, I would want the game to be almost as challenging as playing a real innkeeper in real life.
There's a quest in wow for players who learn first aid. You have to speedily click to provide first aid to wounded people as they come in or they will die. This is a neutral opposing force (like getting tips in swg) that people will actually die if you do not attend to them fast enough, but no real lose factor other than you might have to do it again (because you don't care about inanimate NPCs dying in a video game that will have no effect on your character in the game). Imagine if you fail you have to level up through several levels of first aid again. This would make you not want to mess up and take it a little more seriously. The reward is that you gain more powerful bandaid skills. Now just imagine a game like this for an innkeeper but with more depth and more things you have to do that's a lot more interactive with more win and lose situations other than standing in an inn's doorway offering hearth binds to other players for innkeeper points. Then it would be good game design.
If you want a "social game" only then don't play games with any interaction with an opposing force basically. Opposing forces tend to make you have to play the game instead of chat. There's virtual chat room or non-competitive games for that.
If you want a real breathing world simulation, then it will always need to have some opposing force factor in it. If you're going to have a really really real mmo world like Dawn, then have giving birth to actual characters, aging, permanent character death, and the like, all of which turn out to be opposing factors because the player playing your kid might try to pvp their parents.
Every post you have, you stated there needs to be an opposing force or some form of consequences. For you this may be true. However not everyone needs this to have fun. Or perhaps they can decide for themselves what the opposing force is.
For example my Girl friend playes Eq2. All she does is decorates houses. After 6 years playing she is still only level 1. There is no win or loss for her. Yet she has a ball. Her opposing force is herself. When she is not happy with how something looks, she will tear it down and start all over again.
What the Op is saying is that MMORPG's can have MORE than just killing. He is not saying take that away. just add more for those that don't like to do what you like. There is no reason why someone being an inn keeper can't be fun for those that like to manage something.
People in general enjoy different things. Companies would do very well by incorperating many aspects to the game than just what we have now.
Edit... By the way I totally agree with the Op.
For it to be a game, yes. Recreation and entertainment can be other things like watching movies. Is a movie a game? No. But are movies and games both entertainment? Yes!
Enjoyment is something entirely different. I'm talking about game design. This goes into what a game is. If you don't believe me, go buy a game design book, read it, then come back and tell me it doesn't talk about characteristics such as an opposing force.
What I have said doesn't mean your sister can't be find enjoyment or entertainment from a simple house decoration game. It means that opposing force is an important facet of every part of life and if you weaken it, then the game design becomes weak. I said that the entertainer class in swg is weak.
Plasmidrecx, you like fighting, some like also other definitions of entertainment. They are not yours, which is ok. No need to argue. You have a different taste. Fine. You don't need to convince us of your taste. ^^
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Every post you have, you stated there needs to be an opposing force or some form of consequences. For you this may be true. However not everyone needs this to have fun. Or perhaps they can decide for themselves what the opposing force is.
For example my Girl friend playes Eq2. All she does is decorates houses. After 6 years playing she is still only level 1. There is no win or loss for her. Yet she has a ball. Her opposing force is herself. When she is not happy with how something looks, she will tear it down and start all over again.
What the Op is saying is that MMORPG's can have MORE than just killing. He is not saying take that away. just add more for those that don't like to do what you like. There is no reason why someone being an inn keeper can't be fun for those that like to manage something.
People in general enjoy different things. Companies would do very well by incorperating many aspects to the game than just what we have now.
Edit... By the way I totally agree with the Op.
For it to be a game, yes. Recreation and entertainment can be other things like watching movies. Is a movie a game? No. But are movies and games both entertainment? Yes!
Enjoyment is something entirely different. I'm talking about game design. This goes into what a game is. If you don't believe me, go buy a game design book, read it, then come back and tell me it doesn't talk about characteristics such as an opposing force.
What I have said doesn't mean your sister can't be find enjoyment or entertainment from a simple house decoration game. It means that opposing force is an important facet of every part of life and if you weaken it, then the game design becomes weak. I said that the entertainer class in swg is weak.
That's why they also added a dancer and a musician class
More seriously though I met some great players in SWG, players that I never saw again in any other MMO. Many of these players never ever lifted a weapon but maybe to craft it or sell it to a client.
Just as we're speaking about game design, there are many games that have great concepts and don't need the player to kill anything. BTW sometimes I wish some game designers would stay away from game design books, far away.
Most people like killing things, when it diverts from that, it tends not to do as well. It's a stress reliever. Take things like bowling or pinball. Do they do as well as say Call of duty? Things like a tale in the desert. That doesn't do nearly as well as other games (though it does well enough).
There are alternatives, it's just people who play games generally like to see stuff die, for whatever reason. It's just the general trend and until that changes, it will always be the same way.
The reason call of duty does so well is because they get funded by the U.S. military and the game gets the best of the best in technology.
Like movies,some gaming devs get 'free' military consulting.
Its less about demand and more about what is being supplied.
Also little kids are targeted by COD and they have their parents buy it for them. (Oh and if you don't buy it for your kids, then they will just play it at another friend's house) Little impulsive kids are great consummers.
-My godson plays COD to my dismay and he is 10 years old.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
I am all for extra activities but the main focus will always be killing.
Quests don't allow for much freedom because MMOs have simple and very basic quests. All MMOs nowadays have 5k+ quests. You simply can't make 5k interesting quests, it's way too much time consuming. If they had to put in some interesting quests they will end up at 50-100 for the same time spent.
Single player/multi player (?) games have much more involved quests. However, MMOs are plagued by too many limitations imposed by the very genre and the existence of persistent world.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Most people like killing things, when it diverts from that, it tends not to do as well. It's a stress reliever. Take things like bowling or pinball. Do they do as well as say Call of duty? Things like a tale in the desert. That doesn't do nearly as well as other games (though it does well enough).
There are alternatives, it's just people who play games generally like to see stuff die, for whatever reason. It's just the general trend and until that changes, it will always be the same way.
The reason call of duty does so well is because they get funded by the U.S. military and the game gets the best of the best in technology.
Like movies,some gaming devs get 'free' military consulting.
Its less about demand and more about what is being supplied.
Also little kids are targeted by COD and they have their parents buy it for them. (Oh and if you don't buy it for your kids, then they will just play it at another friend's house) Little impulsive kids are great consummers.
-My godson plays COD to my dismay and he is 10 years old.
You can't patch/code/upgrade 'bad parenting'.
It is like any media where it is up to the parent to know what their 10 year old is doing.
Contrary to popular belief, marketers really try to NOT piss off their playerbase. Here's something straight from a 'marketing guy'.
Comments
This is exactly why it isn't a real game. All you're really doing is chatting to other people while entertaining each other. This is not called a game if there is no opposing force.
While I would love that kind of gameplay, and is why I love Pen & Paper RPGs, I can understand why companies don't dothat for MMOs.
Mainly because if you are provided 1 task but 5 different ways to do it, the average player will only see 1/5th of the dev's work. It's more cost efficient to just do clear 1 beginning 1 end quests. especially when you are constantly making new content generally slower than people can burn through them. write up, mob placement, models, animations all take hours of work for 30 minutes of play, if that. Now one could use templated mobs and models, but that tends to make the world feel cheap.
Another aspect I think is that when MMORPGs came out, developers just translated single player style rpgs to an MMO format.
It's probably why I like sandbox more than theme, ans alot of the quests are started by players for players, even if they don't call them quests. when a guild leader tells the guild member he needs x, y, and z to build a base and the players go get it, that's a quest the devs didn't have to put in, they only had to make the resources, and ability to do it. when a guild storms another guilds castle, that's also a player driven quest that the devs didn't have to write, only create mechanics to di it.
*blinks*
I have had fun. What more "definition" do I need? <.< >.> <.<
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I have to disagree. the game for an entertainer is to get money from patrons. The opposing force is the patron's willingness to give money. It's why there's always merchant minded people playing money maker with auction houses and trades. It's just a different form of game. The opposition in tetris is the blocks falling. Just a different type of game. A Rubic's cube is a puzzle game. the opposition is the cube itself.
Let me put it this way then. If it's relaxing and "just for fun", then it isn't a game with any depth. It's shallow and dull. Like fishing. If you want an mmorpg with innkeepers with any depth, you'll give innkeepers an opposing force that they'll have to deal with to make it a real game.
Well I'm not saying opposing force is what makes a game. I'm saying that without it a game like The Sims is dull and shallow to play.
Pong is a game with an opposing force, but that's about all it has. It has 2 controls. Up or down. Left or right. The goal is to stop the tennis ball from getting past you.
But back then it was huge. Opposing force is what made pong so amazing as well as it being the first video game.
It's the ability to be a loser that is so fun about real games. Or more specificaly to try and be the winner. Especially the ones that are challenging.
Still disagree. Just because it's not exciting to you, doesn't mean it isn't exciting to someone else. I find Go to be more entertaining than chess. Both Go and chess are more in depth than any video game PVP including fps, or raid v raid fantasy.
Still Fishing can be hella exciting when your trying to catch something that you have to fight with for an hour, and you worry your fishing line will snap or catch on an underwater log etc. though this is RL fishing, while video game fish is rather sad when compared to the rea thing. Of course getting shot at in RL is much more exciting than in a game as well <.<
Do you only hang out with real life friends in some kind of fight club, punching one anothers face into something akin to hamburger in the name of fun? At Christmas time when you holiday with the family do you armwrestle your Dad for the holy mantle of "Almighty Turkey Carver", only to both be ambushed by your Gran, who PEW PEWs you with her high tech wrist lasers? When you go on a real life date is your idea of fun to take a girl out and beat the piss out of her .. or her you? Of course not.
Why should human interaction on the internet be less diverse and exciting than in real life? Why are you taking it so personally that some people feel that game makers could make better games by offering its players something more than another game of digital "Bang Bang! Lie down your'e dead", "Cowboys and Indians?"
The OP isn't saying that combat games suck. The OP isn't saying they need to make games with exclusivly no combat. He is simply expounding the idea that an online game world could be a richer and more satisfying place if companies stopped seeing combat as the ONLY possible way to have fun.
You yourself said something like that if a game could make playing a barkeeper more fun than a fighter then you would play it. What the OP is suggesting is that maybe game companies should start thinking about making a game where you could do BOTH.
So why don't you get down off your high horse and step off his plums, because he isn't recommending ruining your idea of fun.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I haven't accused anyone of anything.
Back to what you were saying about getting money from other players, the reason this isn't an opposing force is because you don't lose for playing. In fishing for relaxation purposes only, if you don't catch any fish, then you don't really care. There's no win or lose. You might say "well if you didn't catch any fish, you could say that's like losing!" Yes, yes you can say that, but it's an incredibly neutral loss.
Losing in darkfall or EVE for example could cost you a lot of items and gold and they win all of it. Losing in wow could cost you 30-45 minutes of another game to try and win more points. Losing in raids could cost another week of raiding to 'win' and down the raid boss. There's obviously a range of soft to hard losing and winning.
I'm saying that I am critical about swg entertainers because there is no real winner or loser in that. And if you put opposing force into an innkeeper class, for example, then that's good game design and I would definitely play it.
I find it peculiar that people will disagree with me but not defend The Sims' game design. If you want to truly debate, then come up with a good argument that it is good game design to make a game without an opposing force. Keep the thread civil.
I don't like the sims, so I don't defend it, that's all that amounts to. The sims to me is like someone looking after a virtual pet. I can get it from a caretaker perspective, as it's a caretaker heavy game, with loss being the character's perminant death ultimately. I'm not a caretaker type, though I know a lot of women and a few men that are.
Wish I could fish for relaxation. I always plan to eat what I catch. Hell hunting for recreation makes me sad. I eat what I hunt as well. Perhaps that's the native American in me not wanting to waste perfectly good food for sport. oh I'm rambling.
Back to the top, Getting money from other players is a game as you loose time and money for failing. There's a lot of ways to loose money and time. Even roleplaying the character is it's own reward when done right, people would give you even more cash. Or if all screwed up you wouldn't get any. Earning status with other players and being popular can be much harder than shooting and looting. Yes I'm ignoring the npc aspect, as I personally feel entertainers have more spice when played with other players. Seeing entertainers as only money mills is akin to you seeing fishing as only receation, there's more to it, but you're ignoring it for argument sake.
There's four major types of gamers: social, explorer, competative, merit
that's four different styles to aproach a game. I'm more of a explorer type as I like to see and try new things for the sake of having tried it. I don't particularly like to be in the battle, but I don't mind watching it while hidden, or playing recon for my side. Even recon itself is an explorer type set that doesn't get the good rewards full on PVPers do, but recon lets the leaders direct forces where they can win.
I'm taking it that you're more of a competative type?
You're saying that you can't use fishing for recreation as an example topic because you only fish to eat? Even if it's a video game?
I don't see playing an entertainer as a class in a game as a money mill as you say. I see it as a game. In The Sims, I don't think your characters can permanently die like you say either. As you can just recreate them again with no loss. But I don't actually play the sims either. From what I've seen everything about the sims is pretty much automatic.
A game has rules, interaction with an opposing force, number of players, a method of play, and desirable goals or outcome. Star wars galaxies entertainer has these, but not in full.
An entertainer in swg has a desirable outcome - socialization - you get some players to come watch you and get their character relaxed and then they tip you for getting a combat buff and talk to you. It also has an undesirable outcome which is no one cares to tip you or even come socialize and watch you play. The game places the characters in charge of giving tips and coming to see you, making your outcome entirely dependent on no guarrantee that they will do so (bad design).
Entertainer has a method of play. You can just find an inn or a place to stand and start doing emotes. You can be a dancer or play music. So it's not a deep method of play and it doesn't get much deeper than this. That's all there really is to it. Fighting in WoW on the other hand is way deeper than this.
Entertainer has a set of rules. You can't entertain people out of reach on another planet for instance. You have to be in the room with a person for them to see and hear you. But there is no real consequences for any actions you can take as an entertainer from the game unless you make other players mad, as they can choose not to tip you. But they may choose not to tip you no matter what. Again this is why tipping as a desirable outcome is bad game design.
Entertainer is pretty much always two or more players. You can solo grind your musician or dancing skills, but this pretty much amounts to AFK macro grinding in a location no one will find you because there's no difficulty to it so you'll be bored by yourself. If you macro AFK grind in public, people will get all "that guy is botting! I will not tip botters rawr!" With this music/dancing system it's better off two or more players but there won't always be a 2nd player with you. Plus after you buff a player they leave as that was their whole reason for being there.
The only opposing force is in trying to get the good outcome, which I already said is dependent on other players tipping you. This isn't a good opposing force because of the reasons already given and the fact that the opposing force doesn't try to make you lose in any way. You aren't really interacting with anything except the game's controls and the chat box in order to try and get people to talk and tip you. You're not fighting artificial intelligence or other players.
I'm talking about what a game is. It doesn't matter what type of gamer I am. I like fishing for relaxation purposes sometimes. I have been in dozens of online guilds with the same groups of people and new groups of people and they became good online friends outsides of games ever since. That just isn't a full game. It's just a facet of a game. Again, if you want a real innkeeper class, put ALL facets that make a game into it. Not base it entirely on player's whims with an opposing force that is hardly existent and a simple method of play.
Anyway, these are all game design concepts, and as there are many different game developers with conflicting ideas on what makes a game, I think at bare minimum a game should at least have a solid foundation of these five characteristics. If it has only weak facets of them, then this makes the game weak.
Nay. I'm saying don't discount other aspects. Don't discount the social aspect of the class, as some people enjoy it. It encourages roleplaying IMO. which is rather fun to do imo. Might not be your cup o tea, but it's older than P&P and stems off of acting. I've tried P&P RPing, and LARPing. Not so much a LARP fan, but I can get into P&P RPing. Can't simplying playing a role that you can't do IRL be reward enough? For some people trying to be popular is quite rewarding. I would say failure is generally quantified by what the goal of the player is. If they want to be popular, but just can't do it while other have, that's failure. If they want to RP and get huge tips but instead drive players away, that's a failure. Alot of the opposition to the entertainer is the players mindset, ability, and social skills vs other player's desire for, and opinions of, entertainment.
Location, timing, social skills, and character ability all play a role in getting cash, or failing. Hell a musician IRL have to be good at all those and look good while doing it, or have people help them to earn money by playing. Which is harder than in game as you don't get buffs from music IRL. I only say it out of being a manager/accountant/assistant to a musician before IRL. That shit's rough. Musicians, I sware managing one is like being a babysitter to a drug addict sometimes >.<
I knew I agreed just by the title.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
I didn't read your post, but in response to the title..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdkGv2uk2xo
I didn't discount the social aspect. The social aspect is inside of the desirable outcome. And the UNdesirable outcome is if the other players don't socialize with you.
The point is that with the swg entertainer, it was a weak game because it had a weak foundation in the five characteristics.
A strong game isn't going to make you have to pretend that a goal is there. What you're saying about making my own goals for a game is like saying if a game fails with bad game design, then I should pretend that the good game design is actually there. If I want to do that, I will, but if I don't, then I just won't play that game. That's what the majority of people will do when they are offered a game with bad game design.
You even say yourself that a musician in real life has a huge opposing force factor to deal with like making money. If a real life musician plays bad, then they have a very real problem in that they won't be able to pay for things. Making money, learning new songs/dances, and socializing is about the only things an entertainer in swg can do that is related to what you can also do in real life. What ISN'T the same is that there's no consequence for not getting any tips in swg. So if you are going to make a living breathing game world out of swg, then you will have to give an entertainer a good strong opposing force to interact with, like if you don't get enough tips every day your character will lose something important. This way you will actually have to play hard at being an entertainer so you can work for something. You also have to make playing instruments or dancing more fun than just pushing 1 button every 5-10 seconds to make your character keep playing/dancing. Playing an instrument and dancing should take a lot of practice of experience and knowledge. Just like it does in real life.
Of course sword fighting in real life takes far more experience and knowledge to do than playing a warrior in wow, but if it took the same amount then players wouldn't think it's a very fun video game. There's a range of difficulty. I would say pushing a button every 5-10 seconds to make your character play a new tune or dance in swg is about brain dead difficulty, where in wow a warrior that has to know how to switch stances from battle stance to berserker stance to defensive stance, know 20 buttons for each stance, when to use them, know how they work and what they do, use interrupts effectively by switching to one-hand with shield and back to two-hand, and be circle strafing your enemies all while you have focus target macros for a couple or more would be more like hard difficulty. No, it's not insane or nightmare difficulty like being a real life swordsman would be, it's just plain old fashioned "kinda hard." It doesn't take a leet gamer to play a wow warrior or any class in wow really, it just takes a level of practice that is considered slightly challenging.
If I wanted to play an innkeeper in wow, I would want the game to be almost as challenging as playing a real innkeeper in real life.
There's a quest in wow for players who learn first aid. You have to speedily click to provide first aid to wounded people as they come in or they will die. This is a neutral opposing force (like getting tips in swg) that people will actually die if you do not attend to them fast enough, but no real lose factor other than you might have to do it again (because you don't care about inanimate NPCs dying in a video game that will have no effect on your character in the game). Imagine if you fail you have to level up through several levels of first aid again. This would make you not want to mess up and take it a little more seriously. The reward is that you gain more powerful bandaid skills. Now just imagine a game like this for an innkeeper but with more depth and more things you have to do that's a lot more interactive with more win and lose situations other than standing in an inn's doorway offering hearth binds to other players for innkeeper points. Then it would be good game design.
If you want a "social game" only then don't play games with any interaction with an opposing force basically. Opposing forces tend to make you have to play the game instead of chat. There's virtual chat room or non-competitive games for that.
If you want a real breathing world simulation, then it will always need to have some opposing force factor in it (just like real life has). If you're going to have a really really real mmo world like Dawn, then have giving birth to actual characters, aging, permanent character death, and the like, all of which turn out to be opposing factors because the player playing your kid might try to grief their parents for fun.
Thanks for the link- great vid!
Every post you have, you stated there needs to be an opposing force or some form of consequences. For you this may be true. However not everyone needs this to have fun. Or perhaps they can decide for themselves what the opposing force is.
For example my Girl friend playes Eq2. All she does is decorates houses. After 6 years playing she is still only level 1. There is no win or loss for her. Yet she has a ball. Her opposing force is herself. When she is not happy with how something looks, she will tear it down and start all over again.
What the Op is saying is that MMORPG's can have MORE than just killing. He is not saying take that away. just add more for those that don't like to do what you like. There is no reason why someone being an inn keeper can't be fun for those that like to manage something.
People in general enjoy different things. Companies would do very well by incorperating many aspects to the game than just what we have now.
Edit... By the way I totally agree with the Op.
I totally agree with the OP...and I will advertise EVE Online. There are so many aspects of that game that doesn't require you to kill anything at all.
Currently Play: ?
Occasionally Play: Champions, Pirates of the Burning Sea, WOW, EVE ONLINE
For it to be a game, yes. Recreation and entertainment can be other things like watching movies. Is a movie a game? No. But are movies and games both entertainment? Yes!
Enjoyment is something entirely different. I'm talking about game design. This goes into what a game is. If you don't believe me, go buy a game design book, read it, then come back and tell me it doesn't talk about characteristics such as an opposing force.
What I have said doesn't mean your sister can't be find enjoyment or entertainment from a simple house decoration game. It means that opposing force is an important facet of every part of life and if you weaken it, then the game design becomes weak. I said that the entertainer class in swg is weak.
Plasmidrecx, you like fighting, some like also other definitions of entertainment. They are not yours, which is ok. No need to argue. You have a different taste. Fine. You don't need to convince us of your taste. ^^
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
That's why they also added a dancer and a musician class
More seriously though I met some great players in SWG, players that I never saw again in any other MMO. Many of these players never ever lifted a weapon but maybe to craft it or sell it to a client.
Just as we're speaking about game design, there are many games that have great concepts and don't need the player to kill anything. BTW sometimes I wish some game designers would stay away from game design books, far away.
P.S. great thread!
Also little kids are targeted by COD and they have their parents buy it for them. (Oh and if you don't buy it for your kids, then they will just play it at another friend's house) Little impulsive kids are great consummers.
-My godson plays COD to my dismay and he is 10 years old.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
I am all for extra activities but the main focus will always be killing.
Quests don't allow for much freedom because MMOs have simple and very basic quests. All MMOs nowadays have 5k+ quests. You simply can't make 5k interesting quests, it's way too much time consuming. If they had to put in some interesting quests they will end up at 50-100 for the same time spent.
Single player/multi player (?) games have much more involved quests. However, MMOs are plagued by too many limitations imposed by the very genre and the existence of persistent world.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
You can't patch/code/upgrade 'bad parenting'.
It is like any media where it is up to the parent to know what their 10 year old is doing.
Contrary to popular belief, marketers really try to NOT piss off their playerbase. Here's something straight from a 'marketing guy'.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/first-personmarketer/8346-First-Person-Marketer-Marketing-Games-to-Kids
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.