And? I'm old enough for you to have grandkids... I own a pocket calculator that's a lot older than you. I'm not getting at you here, but why open a post with your age? Is it relevant? Is it even meaningful? At my age I can tell you this - age is not a virtue.
GW2 is fun, I agree (I'm an altoholic like you) but fun is where you find it. Anything can be fun. There are people who spend a lot of money and time collecting used postage stamps and it's fun for them. I don't knock them because it isn't fun for me though.
Age is relevant in the sense that by the time someone is 26 years old, he has an education, his own appartment, he is past the pubescent phase of finding an identity, he is responsible for himself and his actions, etc. Only large pieces missing are: career, perhaps not dealing with the death of his parents or other close "older" persons, dealing with his own mortality, creating a family of his own, etc.
I'm not sure what 26 year olds you're talking about, but a good lot of them (because of this economy) are staying at home and do NOT have the responsibilities or experiences you're talking about. So really, no, age is not relevant. Experience is relevant and that, for the most part, is not dependent upon age. Even fun is relative, which makes these kinds of threads very interesting.
Bottom line is that FUN is entirely subjective. Different people find different things FUN and also to different degrees and at different times and in different contexts. Progession is something which certainly is FUN for some people, although it's NOT something everyone finds FUN...and even for many of those who do enjoy it, it's not neccesarly the ONLY thing they find fun nor the most signficant thing they find FUN.
I do think it's fair to say that MMO's have been stuck focusing on progression as the PRIMARY element of play for some time now. I think there are really 2 reasons for that:
- It was one of the major elements in the very successfull MMO's that many developers wanted to emulate. So it became seen as part of the "formula" for success, absent of whether that was objectively true or not ...or the concept if there weren't, in fact, many formula's that could be successfull.
- It's something that was relatively EASY for Developers to impliment and control directly, therefore it was something many of them focused on. For example.....Socialization with others is something many human beings find enjoyable.... yet that's something that is impossible for Developers to control directly. They can't code "Socialization" directly into thier game systems like they can code in awarding 50 exp for killing a mob. At best they can try to build an atmosphere that is highly conducsive/fosters "Socialization" but they can't actualy control whether it happens or not. That at least partialy falls to the player base. Newer model Developers, particularly those who are working for large corporations (because that frankly is part of the culture in most large corporations) tend to be deathly allergic to things they can't control directly...or that rely at least partly on the players....so they tend not to build designs that are focus'ed on them.
Bottom line is that FUN is entirely subjective. Different people find different things FUN and also to different degrees and at different times and in different contexts. Progession is something which certainly is FUN for some people, although it's NOT something everyone finds FUN...and even for many of those who do enjoy it, it's not neccesarly the ONLY thing they find fun nor the most signficant thing they find FUN.
I do think it's fair to say that MMO's have been stuck focusing on progression as the PRIMARY element of play for some time now. I think there are really 2 reasons for that:
- It was one of the major elements in the very successfull MMO's that many developers wanted to emulate. So it became seen as part of the "formula" for success, absent of whether that was objectively true or not ...or the concept if there weren't, in fact, many formula's that could be successfull.
- It's something that was relatively EASY for Developers to impliment and control directly, therefore it was something many of them focused on. For example.....Socialization with others is something many human beings find enjoyable.... yet that's something that is impossible for Developers to control directly. They can't code "Socialization" directly into thier game systems like they can code in awarding 50 exp for killing a mob. At best they can try to build an atmosphere that is highly conducsive/fosters "Socialization" but they can't actualy control whether it happens or not. That at least partialy falls to the player base. Newer model Developers, particularly those who are working for large corporations (because that frankly is part of the culture in most large corporations) tend to be deathly allergic to things they can't control directly...or that rely at least partly on the players....so they tend not to build designs that are focus'ed on them.
Of coures fun is subjective. However, there is objective measure of the size of the player population that found a certain gameplay, or feature(s) fun.
And this population vote with their time & wallet.
Bottom line is that FUN is entirely subjective. Different people find different things FUN and also to different degrees and at different times and in different contexts. Progession is something which certainly is FUN for some people, although it's NOT something everyone finds FUN...and even for many of those who do enjoy it, it's not neccesarly the ONLY thing they find fun nor the most signficant thing they find FUN.
I do think it's fair to say that MMO's have been stuck focusing on progression as the PRIMARY element of play for some time now. I think there are really 2 reasons for that:
- It was one of the major elements in the very successfull MMO's that many developers wanted to emulate. So it became seen as part of the "formula" for success, absent of whether that was objectively true or not ...or the concept if there weren't, in fact, many formula's that could be successfull.
- It's something that was relatively EASY for Developers to impliment and control directly, therefore it was something many of them focused on. For example.....Socialization with others is something many human beings find enjoyable.... yet that's something that is impossible for Developers to control directly. They can't code "Socialization" directly into thier game systems like they can code in awarding 50 exp for killing a mob. At best they can try to build an atmosphere that is highly conducsive/fosters "Socialization" but they can't actualy control whether it happens or not. That at least partialy falls to the player base. Newer model Developers, particularly those who are working for large corporations (because that frankly is part of the culture in most large corporations) tend to be deathly allergic to things they can't control directly...or that rely at least partly on the players....so they tend not to build designs that are focus'ed on them.
Of coures fun is subjective. However, there is objective measure of the size of the player population that found a certain gameplay, or feature(s) fun.
And this population vote with their time & wallet.
There is the phenomena of doing something that it perceived to be the thing to do, its cool to play a MMO for instance and if that MMO catches that zeitgeist its population swells but that has no bearing on whether the majority of that MMO's population are having fun. This is exactly the magic that all gaming companies are trying to formulate time and again with LoL being the new cool kid in town and the old timer MMO is bleeding populations.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
There is the phenomena of doing something that it perceived to be the thing to do, its cool to play a MMO for instance and if that MMO catches that zeitgeist its population swells but that has no bearing on whether the majority of that MMO's population are having fun. This is exactly the magic that all gaming companies are trying to formulate time and again with LoL being the new cool kid in town and the old timer MMO is bleeding populations.
I highly doubt players will be doing something hours after hours without having fun. Sure, hype or peer pressure may get someone to try a game, or even play a while, but playing weeks after weeks?
Do you have any evidence that a majority of LOl players are not having fun? In fact, most of the ones i know have tremendous amount of fun. Personally i don't like LOL that much (don't like i have to restart my character level for every game, and I am not a big pvp player), so i don't play. And i don't see a reason to.
Bottom line is that FUN is entirely subjective. Different people find different things FUN and also to different degrees and at different times and in different contexts. Progession is something which certainly is FUN for some people, although it's NOT something everyone finds FUN...and even for many of those who do enjoy it, it's not neccesarly the ONLY thing they find fun nor the most signficant thing they find FUN.
I do think it's fair to say that MMO's have been stuck focusing on progression as the PRIMARY element of play for some time now. I think there are really 2 reasons for that:
- It was one of the major elements in the very successfull MMO's that many developers wanted to emulate. So it became seen as part of the "formula" for success, absent of whether that was objectively true or not ...or the concept if there weren't, in fact, many formula's that could be successfull.
- It's something that was relatively EASY for Developers to impliment and control directly, therefore it was something many of them focused on. For example.....Socialization with others is something many human beings find enjoyable.... yet that's something that is impossible for Developers to control directly. They can't code "Socialization" directly into thier game systems like they can code in awarding 50 exp for killing a mob. At best they can try to build an atmosphere that is highly conducsive/fosters "Socialization" but they can't actualy control whether it happens or not. That at least partialy falls to the player base. Newer model Developers, particularly those who are working for large corporations (because that frankly is part of the culture in most large corporations) tend to be deathly allergic to things they can't control directly...or that rely at least partly on the players....so they tend not to build designs that are focus'ed on them.
Of coures fun is subjective. However, there is objective measure of the size of the player population that found a certain gameplay, or feature(s) fun.
And this population vote with their time & wallet.
Sure, but that's not quite as simple as it sounds....
- Firstly you have to determine not only what people are doing but WHY they are doing what they are doing. Even companies with direct data mining ability of population preferences often get this wrong. Else you would never have seen something like "New Coke". There are alot of different reasons for this ranging from whether the poll itself is suggesting an answer or people are self-selecting not to answer the poll and therefore throwing off your representative sample, to people simply not really being able to identify/articulate why they like/dislike something.
- Next you have to define the actual population you are trying to examine. For enterprises this often includes not just people currently using thier products but also people NOT using thier projects. For example it's easy to identify how many people are currently using the McDonalds on the corner, you can probably even survey them....but that doesn't neccesarly tell you how many people might use the resteraunt on the corner if it were something DIFFERENT then McDonalds. It's alot more difficult to try to answer those sorts of questions accurately without actualy doing it.
- Finally you have to try to seperate issues of design versus implimentation. People can love the idea of something but hate the way it was implimented in a particular case....and vice versa. So it's not as simple as saying X product doesn't work, unless you can dig down to figure out WHY X product wasn't working....and that's not always very straightforward.
Finally, it's also somewhat of an irrelevent question for anyone trying to enter the market now. The question to ask is not "What is everyone doing currently that is working." That's a question which at best gets you into competition with everyone is....meaning you have to do that thing better then anyone else to have a successfull product. The real question to ask is "What is no one else doing currently that could work?" That's a question which gets you your own market, where you don't have to compete with everyone else to be viable. Then you've got to figure out "Is that market large enough to be succesfull" and "How do I go about building a product that attracts that market with this budget."
It all depends on what you find fun, there's nothing universal when it comes to fun or enjoyment. Some simply stop having fun once the progression is over, I won't pretend to know why or lambast them for their opinion on what is fun. I'll simply accept it and move along.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Finally, it's also somewhat of an irrelevent question for anyone trying to enter the market now. The question to ask is not "What is everyone doing currently that is working." That's a question which at best gets you into competition with everyone is....meaning you have to do that thing better then anyone else to have a successfull product. The real question to ask is "What is no one else doing currently that could work?" That's a question which gets you your own market, where you don't have to compete with everyone else to be viable. Then you've got to figure out "Is that market large enough to be succesfull" and "How do I go about building a product that attracts that market with this budget."
may be .. but not for devs already in the market.
You don't see EA stops making Madden. The latest one sold 1.65M when it was out .. they must be doing something right (disclaimer, i hate football game and have never played a complete game).
I don't see FPS devs making something else. Every COD sells. Every Bioshock sells. Every Deadspace sells. And many of these are good games. Not every devs need to break new ground.
Finally, it's also somewhat of an irrelevent question for anyone trying to enter the market now. The question to ask is not "What is everyone doing currently that is working." That's a question which at best gets you into competition with everyone is....meaning you have to do that thing better then anyone else to have a successfull product. The real question to ask is "What is no one else doing currently that could work?" That's a question which gets you your own market, where you don't have to compete with everyone else to be viable. Then you've got to figure out "Is that market large enough to be succesfull" and "How do I go about building a product that attracts that market with this budget."
may be .. but not for devs already in the market.
You don't see EA stops making Madden. The latest one sold 1.65M when it was out .. they must be doing something right (disclaimer, i hate football game and have never played a complete game).
1.65m is peanuts; Skyrim sold around 10 million. Guess that means Skyrim is just objectively the better game.
I don't see FPS devs making something else. Every COD sells. Every Bioshock sells. Every Deadspace sells. And many of these are good games. Not every devs need to break new ground.
None of those games would even exist if some dev hadn't broken new ground at some point in time. We'd still be playing mario-brothers style platformers and nothing else.
Finally, it's also somewhat of an irrelevent question for anyone trying to enter the market now. The question to ask is not "What is everyone doing currently that is working." That's a question which at best gets you into competition with everyone is....meaning you have to do that thing better then anyone else to have a successfull product. The real question to ask is "What is no one else doing currently that could work?" That's a question which gets you your own market, where you don't have to compete with everyone else to be viable. Then you've got to figure out "Is that market large enough to be succesfull" and "How do I go about building a product that attracts that market with this budget."
may be .. but not for devs already in the market.
You don't see EA stops making Madden. The latest one sold 1.65M when it was out .. they must be doing something right (disclaimer, i hate football game and have never played a complete game).
1.65m is peanuts; Skyrim sold around 10 million. Guess that means Skyrim is just objectively the better game.
I don't see FPS devs making something else. Every COD sells. Every Bioshock sells. Every Deadspace sells. And many of these are good games. Not every devs need to break new ground.
None of those games would even exist if some dev hadn't broken new ground at some point in time. We'd still be playing mario-brothers style platformers and nothing else.
And Skyrim is not breaknig new ground. It is just a sequal of Oblivion.
And by your logic, Diablo 3 sold 10M in less than 3 month .. must be even a better game than SKYRIM.
It also does not break a lot of new ground (granted that the skill system is new).
And sure .. many things are new in the past, but not anymore. Do we break new ground in transportation every year? After the first model T, cars still have 4 wheels. After the first DOOM, FPS still have guns .. you don't need completely new stuff every iteration.
Finally, it's also somewhat of an irrelevent question for anyone trying to enter the market now. The question to ask is not "What is everyone doing currently that is working." That's a question which at best gets you into competition with everyone is....meaning you have to do that thing better then anyone else to have a successfull product. The real question to ask is "What is no one else doing currently that could work?" That's a question which gets you your own market, where you don't have to compete with everyone else to be viable. Then you've got to figure out "Is that market large enough to be succesfull" and "How do I go about building a product that attracts that market with this budget."
may be .. but not for devs already in the market.
You don't see EA stops making Madden. The latest one sold 1.65M when it was out .. they must be doing something right (disclaimer, i hate football game and have never played a complete game).
1.65m is peanuts; Skyrim sold around 10 million. Guess that means Skyrim is just objectively the better game.
I don't see FPS devs making something else. Every COD sells. Every Bioshock sells. Every Deadspace sells. And many of these are good games. Not every devs need to break new ground.
None of those games would even exist if some dev hadn't broken new ground at some point in time. We'd still be playing mario-brothers style platformers and nothing else.
And Skyrim is not breaknig new ground. It is just a sequal of Oblivion.
And by your logic, Diablo 3 sold 10M in less than 3 month .. must be even a better game than SKYRIM.
First, it's your logic; I'm just borrowing it for the sake of argument. Second, it's the same number of sales therefore (by this logic) neither is better than the other :P
And sure .. many things are new in the past, but not anymore. Do we break new ground in transportation every year? After the first model T, cars still have 4 wheels. After the first DOOM, FPS still have guns .. you don't need completely new stuff every iteration.
Who said 'every iteration'? Most I've seen anyone asking for is "more often than the status quo."
People need pretentious reasons to play. " i must achieve something!" or "what im doing must have meaning!" there is no place for fun in our line of work. We need to craft weapons andsiege engines and daydream about a sandbox that will satisfy us all! Oh and build cities.
now if youll excuse me, i must use my killstreak booster adn perform an alpine minotaur genocide. ALL YOUR THIN BLOODS ARE BELONG TO ME!
work work work....stop clicking me!
Im drunk x.x and yes my off days are tue and thu. Amagad hai justoneeeee~
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
I think i am Rare,when i say i play for FUN, i really mean it.
Example i am PAYING and playing FFXI on a NEW toon brand new noob.
I could easily jump on my older toons with all that gear,but it is about the FUN ,NOT the gear.
I seriously wonder how many players would play if servers crashed and they had to start over.I bet the numbers would definitely drop by a LOT,probably less than half the population now in any game.
This is a question everyone should ask themselves when playing a game.Ask yourself if you had to start over would you play again.I don`t really mean if the entire server had to start over,i mean JUST you or perhaps you and all your friends.You would still have your friends to have fun with.
I think in reality too many play and worry about their egos or trying to be better than everyone else.The fact that so many worry about pvp kind of supports that notion.
I find many also use the term `Fun`as a quick argument for lack of better when comparing games.I am in no hurry when i game,i simply like to enjoy the friends and playing the game.It is very simple for me ,i want an entire game to be well thought out,like total cohesion and i like an intuitive combat system,again one that is well thought out.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Wizardry I think in reality too many play and worry about their egos or trying to be better than everyone else.The fact that so many worry about pvp kind of supports that notion.
Different people have fun in different ways. That you do not find PvP fun, does not mean that other folks do not find it fun as well...
What's fun for Richard may not be fun for Harold. What's fun for Harold may not be fun for Richard. What's fun for Thomas may not be fun for either Richard or Harold.
If a person's not having fun, it's generally not something they're mistaking for something else. They're not having fun.
Even in regard to the original post, it simply comes down to the OP having a definition of fun that is not universal.
EVE comes to mind. There are people that do not consider it fun. There are people that consider it loads of fun. Neither is wrong and both are right... because it's different strokes for different folks. Even the reasons that they consider it fun or consider it not fun can vary...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I also did start with Commodore 64, then Amiga 600, then first PC.
My friends had consoles so I know that as well.
I play ALL games to have fun. Kinda no-brainer right?
I played old Syndicate and Syndicate Wars for fun, I played UT for fun and I played UO for fun. Hell I even played themeparks for fun - Lotro and WoW Vanilla.
What's with this GW2 = fun ,other mmorpg's not fun?
If anyone played mmorpg and was not having fun - then, why have you played it? To torture yourself?
Seriously start thinking with your head and don't just jump mindlessly on games or play them because 'my friends / internet buddies / guild' playes them?
So what?! If you don't like all games they play then play only those who you like. If you don't like all / almost all games they play, then maybe it is time to find new people to play with?
Instead of force playing and then saying 'oh it is no fun, but I played because [enter "reason" here].
And Skyrim is not breaknig new ground. It is just a sequal of Oblivion.
And by your logic, Diablo 3 sold 10M in less than 3 month .. must be even a better game than SKYRIM.
First, it's your logic; I'm just borrowing it for the sake of argument. Second, it's the same number of sales therefore (by this logic) neither is better than the other :P
Yes. D3 did it in less than 3 months. It took SKYRIM from July to Dec (info from wikipedia).
And sure .. many things are new in the past, but not anymore. Do we break new ground in transportation every year? After the first model T, cars still have 4 wheels. After the first DOOM, FPS still have guns .. you don't need completely new stuff every iteration.
Who said 'every iteration'? Most I've seen anyone asking for is "more often than the status quo."
How about every year? And is new things always better?
Finally, it's also somewhat of an irrelevent question for anyone trying to enter the market now. The question to ask is not "What is everyone doing currently that is working." That's a question which at best gets you into competition with everyone is....meaning you have to do that thing better then anyone else to have a successfull product. The real question to ask is "What is no one else doing currently that could work?" That's a question which gets you your own market, where you don't have to compete with everyone else to be viable. Then you've got to figure out "Is that market large enough to be succesfull" and "How do I go about building a product that attracts that market with this budget."
may be .. but not for devs already in the market.
You don't see EA stops making Madden. The latest one sold 1.65M when it was out .. they must be doing something right (disclaimer, i hate football game and have never played a complete game).
I don't see FPS devs making something else. Every COD sells. Every Bioshock sells. Every Deadspace sells. And many of these are good games. Not every devs need to break new ground.
Well notice something about all the examples you cited... They are all examples of boxed software based games, not service based games (MMO's). They are budgeted, financed and sold based on a completely different business model then MMO's. Boxed software is based off the idea that each release has a fairly limited shelf life (a few months - maybe a year at most) after which it's not returning very much revenue (sales) any more. The typical customer buys the game within a couple months of it's release, plays the game for a month or two, at which point they are "finnished" with it and starts looking for something else. Thus if the publisher wants to continue making revenue, they need to release a new iteration of the game/series...and they aren't stealing any revenue or competeing with thier existing titles by doing so...because most players have already "finnished" those titles by that point...and the company isn't making much money on them anymore. The entire business model is built around that dynamic. Thus you won't see EA release one "Madden" or a similar football title with a couple months of releasing another...because they'd be stealing revenue (competeing) from thier own title.
The service based model (which is what MMO's are under the skin) is completely different. While services may have a shelf-life, it's much longer ....something like 10+ years. The company may make some initial money upon release (sales of the game) but the lions share of it's income comes in recurring revenue...as month after month people pay to access the title (or to access things in the title in case of the F2P model)....in return the Developer continues to add content or updates to the service on a continual/gradual basis in order to keep the title fresh/competitive and hold onto it's audience. The entire business model is built and funded around that model. Thus a new entrent to that field has to compete with the existing titles because unlike with boxed software, most players aren't actualy "finnished" with the title at that point. It would be the same dynamic as if another company had released a football game within 2 weeks of EA releasing "Madden". The 2 would be in direct competition for that market segment and the new one would probably have to offer a qualitatively different game experience then "Madden" or it would probably loose out to the estasblished brand with better name recognition.
Now, at some point, even existing service based offerings start to reach the end of thier shelf-life and get "stale"...and there is some opportunity to win customers away from it with a "fresh" and new offering of the same sort of play. Also, I expect, there will always be companies that look at existing titles and say "I can do a better job of what they are doing and win business from them." There will also be companies that fool themselves into thinking that minor or surface differences are going to make a significant difference in winning customers. So if you are woried about no new titles being offered that are similar to the existing ones that you like...I don't think that will happen..... and certainly there are going to be plenty of titles that still feature progression based play, as that's only one facet of game design...and not the only significant one that can be changed. However, the fact remains... a new MMO entering the market today is going to have it's best chance of success by appealing to portions of the audience that are NOT being well served by the existing titles....the trick is figuring out exactly what those are and how big they are and how to make a product that actualy does that. Otherwise you are left with trying to make a better "WoW" then Blizzard has...and that's a damn difficult task.
Edit: In a well established and saturated market (and this is true genericaly, not just for MMO's). Well established brands can generaly do well by continuing to offer what they always have. Newcomers, who want to break into the market, usualy have to find market segements that are currently underserved by the established brand if they want to be successfull.
I also did start with Commodore 64, then Amiga 600, then first PC.
My friends had consoles so I know that as well.
I play ALL games to have fun. Kinda no-brainer right?
I played old Syndicate and Syndicate Wars for fun, I played UT for fun and I played UO for fun. Hell I even played themeparks for fun - Lotro and WoW Vanilla.
What's with this GW2 = fun ,other mmorpg's not fun?
That's not actually what it's about.
This is a response to various "no progression, what's the point?" threads popping up. It's not a claim that GW2 = fun, others = notfun, it's a suggestion that "fun" should be the reason one plays.
Now, maybe some folks find progression-for-its-own-sake fun. They're not going to like GW2 much, because it doesn't cater to that. And that's fine, in itself, if they put it that way. But when they say it as "progression is the reason to play, no progression = no reason to play" then... well, it really looks like they're saying "fun is worthless."
Comments
I'm not sure what 26 year olds you're talking about, but a good lot of them (because of this economy) are staying at home and do NOT have the responsibilities or experiences you're talking about. So really, no, age is not relevant. Experience is relevant and that, for the most part, is not dependent upon age. Even fun is relative, which makes these kinds of threads very interesting.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Bottom line is that FUN is entirely subjective. Different people find different things FUN and also to different degrees and at different times and in different contexts. Progession is something which certainly is FUN for some people, although it's NOT something everyone finds FUN...and even for many of those who do enjoy it, it's not neccesarly the ONLY thing they find fun nor the most signficant thing they find FUN.
I do think it's fair to say that MMO's have been stuck focusing on progression as the PRIMARY element of play for some time now. I think there are really 2 reasons for that:
- It was one of the major elements in the very successfull MMO's that many developers wanted to emulate. So it became seen as part of the "formula" for success, absent of whether that was objectively true or not ...or the concept if there weren't, in fact, many formula's that could be successfull.
- It's something that was relatively EASY for Developers to impliment and control directly, therefore it was something many of them focused on. For example.....Socialization with others is something many human beings find enjoyable.... yet that's something that is impossible for Developers to control directly. They can't code "Socialization" directly into thier game systems like they can code in awarding 50 exp for killing a mob. At best they can try to build an atmosphere that is highly conducsive/fosters "Socialization" but they can't actualy control whether it happens or not. That at least partialy falls to the player base. Newer model Developers, particularly those who are working for large corporations (because that frankly is part of the culture in most large corporations) tend to be deathly allergic to things they can't control directly...or that rely at least partly on the players....so they tend not to build designs that are focus'ed on them.
Of coures fun is subjective. However, there is objective measure of the size of the player population that found a certain gameplay, or feature(s) fun.
And this population vote with their time & wallet.
There is the phenomena of doing something that it perceived to be the thing to do, its cool to play a MMO for instance and if that MMO catches that zeitgeist its population swells but that has no bearing on whether the majority of that MMO's population are having fun. This is exactly the magic that all gaming companies are trying to formulate time and again with LoL being the new cool kid in town and the old timer MMO is bleeding populations.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I highly doubt players will be doing something hours after hours without having fun. Sure, hype or peer pressure may get someone to try a game, or even play a while, but playing weeks after weeks?
Do you have any evidence that a majority of LOl players are not having fun? In fact, most of the ones i know have tremendous amount of fun. Personally i don't like LOL that much (don't like i have to restart my character level for every game, and I am not a big pvp player), so i don't play. And i don't see a reason to.
Sure, but that's not quite as simple as it sounds....
- Firstly you have to determine not only what people are doing but WHY they are doing what they are doing. Even companies with direct data mining ability of population preferences often get this wrong. Else you would never have seen something like "New Coke". There are alot of different reasons for this ranging from whether the poll itself is suggesting an answer or people are self-selecting not to answer the poll and therefore throwing off your representative sample, to people simply not really being able to identify/articulate why they like/dislike something.
- Next you have to define the actual population you are trying to examine. For enterprises this often includes not just people currently using thier products but also people NOT using thier projects. For example it's easy to identify how many people are currently using the McDonalds on the corner, you can probably even survey them....but that doesn't neccesarly tell you how many people might use the resteraunt on the corner if it were something DIFFERENT then McDonalds. It's alot more difficult to try to answer those sorts of questions accurately without actualy doing it.
- Finally you have to try to seperate issues of design versus implimentation. People can love the idea of something but hate the way it was implimented in a particular case....and vice versa. So it's not as simple as saying X product doesn't work, unless you can dig down to figure out WHY X product wasn't working....and that's not always very straightforward.
Finally, it's also somewhat of an irrelevent question for anyone trying to enter the market now. The question to ask is not "What is everyone doing currently that is working." That's a question which at best gets you into competition with everyone is....meaning you have to do that thing better then anyone else to have a successfull product. The real question to ask is "What is no one else doing currently that could work?" That's a question which gets you your own market, where you don't have to compete with everyone else to be viable. Then you've got to figure out "Is that market large enough to be succesfull" and "How do I go about building a product that attracts that market with this budget."
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
may be .. but not for devs already in the market.
You don't see EA stops making Madden. The latest one sold 1.65M when it was out .. they must be doing something right (disclaimer, i hate football game and have never played a complete game).
I don't see FPS devs making something else. Every COD sells. Every Bioshock sells. Every Deadspace sells. And many of these are good games. Not every devs need to break new ground.
1.65m is peanuts; Skyrim sold around 10 million. Guess that means Skyrim is just objectively the better game.
None of those games would even exist if some dev hadn't broken new ground at some point in time. We'd still be playing mario-brothers style platformers and nothing else.
And Skyrim is not breaknig new ground. It is just a sequal of Oblivion.
And by your logic, Diablo 3 sold 10M in less than 3 month .. must be even a better game than SKYRIM.
It also does not break a lot of new ground (granted that the skill system is new).
And sure .. many things are new in the past, but not anymore. Do we break new ground in transportation every year? After the first model T, cars still have 4 wheels. After the first DOOM, FPS still have guns .. you don't need completely new stuff every iteration.
First, it's your logic; I'm just borrowing it for the sake of argument. Second, it's the same number of sales therefore (by this logic) neither is better than the other :P
Who said 'every iteration'? Most I've seen anyone asking for is "more often than the status quo."
People need pretentious reasons to play. " i must achieve something!" or "what im doing must have meaning!" there is no place for fun in our line of work. We need to craft weapons andsiege engines and daydream about a sandbox that will satisfy us all! Oh and build cities.
now if youll excuse me, i must use my killstreak booster adn perform an alpine minotaur genocide. ALL YOUR THIN BLOODS ARE BELONG TO ME!
work work work....stop clicking me!
Im drunk x.x and yes my off days are tue and thu. Amagad hai justoneeeee~
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
I think i am Rare,when i say i play for FUN, i really mean it.
Example i am PAYING and playing FFXI on a NEW toon brand new noob.
I could easily jump on my older toons with all that gear,but it is about the FUN ,NOT the gear.
I seriously wonder how many players would play if servers crashed and they had to start over.I bet the numbers would definitely drop by a LOT,probably less than half the population now in any game.
This is a question everyone should ask themselves when playing a game.Ask yourself if you had to start over would you play again.I don`t really mean if the entire server had to start over,i mean JUST you or perhaps you and all your friends.You would still have your friends to have fun with.
I think in reality too many play and worry about their egos or trying to be better than everyone else.The fact that so many worry about pvp kind of supports that notion.
I find many also use the term `Fun`as a quick argument for lack of better when comparing games.I am in no hurry when i game,i simply like to enjoy the friends and playing the game.It is very simple for me ,i want an entire game to be well thought out,like total cohesion and i like an intuitive combat system,again one that is well thought out.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Different people have fun in different ways. That you do not find PvP fun, does not mean that other folks do not find it fun as well...
What's fun for Richard may not be fun for Harold. What's fun for Harold may not be fun for Richard. What's fun for Thomas may not be fun for either Richard or Harold.
If a person's not having fun, it's generally not something they're mistaking for something else. They're not having fun.
Even in regard to the original post, it simply comes down to the OP having a definition of fun that is not universal.
EVE comes to mind. There are people that do not consider it fun. There are people that consider it loads of fun. Neither is wrong and both are right... because it's different strokes for different folks. Even the reasons that they consider it fun or consider it not fun can vary...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Another "let's praise GW2" post. *bleagh*
Seriously. Stop.
I also did start with Commodore 64, then Amiga 600, then first PC.
My friends had consoles so I know that as well.
I play ALL games to have fun. Kinda no-brainer right?
I played old Syndicate and Syndicate Wars for fun, I played UT for fun and I played UO for fun. Hell I even played themeparks for fun - Lotro and WoW Vanilla.
What's with this GW2 = fun ,other mmorpg's not fun?
If anyone played mmorpg and was not having fun - then, why have you played it? To torture yourself?
Seriously start thinking with your head and don't just jump mindlessly on games or play them because 'my friends / internet buddies / guild' playes them?
So what?! If you don't like all games they play then play only those who you like. If you don't like all / almost all games they play, then maybe it is time to find new people to play with?
Instead of force playing and then saying 'oh it is no fun, but I played because [enter "reason" here].
How about every year? And is new things always better?
Well notice something about all the examples you cited... They are all examples of boxed software based games, not service based games (MMO's). They are budgeted, financed and sold based on a completely different business model then MMO's. Boxed software is based off the idea that each release has a fairly limited shelf life (a few months - maybe a year at most) after which it's not returning very much revenue (sales) any more. The typical customer buys the game within a couple months of it's release, plays the game for a month or two, at which point they are "finnished" with it and starts looking for something else. Thus if the publisher wants to continue making revenue, they need to release a new iteration of the game/series...and they aren't stealing any revenue or competeing with thier existing titles by doing so...because most players have already "finnished" those titles by that point...and the company isn't making much money on them anymore. The entire business model is built around that dynamic. Thus you won't see EA release one "Madden" or a similar football title with a couple months of releasing another...because they'd be stealing revenue (competeing) from thier own title.
The service based model (which is what MMO's are under the skin) is completely different. While services may have a shelf-life, it's much longer ....something like 10+ years. The company may make some initial money upon release (sales of the game) but the lions share of it's income comes in recurring revenue...as month after month people pay to access the title (or to access things in the title in case of the F2P model)....in return the Developer continues to add content or updates to the service on a continual/gradual basis in order to keep the title fresh/competitive and hold onto it's audience. The entire business model is built and funded around that model. Thus a new entrent to that field has to compete with the existing titles because unlike with boxed software, most players aren't actualy "finnished" with the title at that point. It would be the same dynamic as if another company had released a football game within 2 weeks of EA releasing "Madden". The 2 would be in direct competition for that market segment and the new one would probably have to offer a qualitatively different game experience then "Madden" or it would probably loose out to the estasblished brand with better name recognition.
Now, at some point, even existing service based offerings start to reach the end of thier shelf-life and get "stale"...and there is some opportunity to win customers away from it with a "fresh" and new offering of the same sort of play. Also, I expect, there will always be companies that look at existing titles and say "I can do a better job of what they are doing and win business from them." There will also be companies that fool themselves into thinking that minor or surface differences are going to make a significant difference in winning customers. So if you are woried about no new titles being offered that are similar to the existing ones that you like...I don't think that will happen..... and certainly there are going to be plenty of titles that still feature progression based play, as that's only one facet of game design...and not the only significant one that can be changed. However, the fact remains... a new MMO entering the market today is going to have it's best chance of success by appealing to portions of the audience that are NOT being well served by the existing titles....the trick is figuring out exactly what those are and how big they are and how to make a product that actualy does that. Otherwise you are left with trying to make a better "WoW" then Blizzard has...and that's a damn difficult task.
Edit: In a well established and saturated market (and this is true genericaly, not just for MMO's). Well established brands can generaly do well by continuing to offer what they always have. Newcomers, who want to break into the market, usualy have to find market segements that are currently underserved by the established brand if they want to be successfull.
That's not actually what it's about.
This is a response to various "no progression, what's the point?" threads popping up. It's not a claim that GW2 = fun, others = notfun, it's a suggestion that "fun" should be the reason one plays.
Now, maybe some folks find progression-for-its-own-sake fun. They're not going to like GW2 much, because it doesn't cater to that. And that's fine, in itself, if they put it that way. But when they say it as "progression is the reason to play, no progression = no reason to play" then... well, it really looks like they're saying "fun is worthless."