The elimination of non-consensual PvP has nothing to do with this topic which, in case you forgot, talks about how Fear of Death is all but gone in today's MMOs.
Isn't the elimination of non-consensual pvp one reason why the fear of death is all but gone?
The elimination of non-consensual PvP has nothing to do with this topic which, in case you forgot, talks about how Fear of Death is all but gone in today's MMOs.
Isn't the elimination of non-consensual pvp one reason why the fear of death is all but gone?
No. Fear of death in this case is talking about what happens after you die, not how you die or who kills you.
Man, the MMORPG.com forums are obsessed with this topic. Pretty sure we've been having this same discussion for about the entire life-cycle of this website with no progression of ideas...
Anyway, I may as well toss my 2 cents into the perpetual samsara of thoughts that is these forums:
I never played UO or EQ1, but I did start my MMO career back when games with these sorts of mechanics were common, and played several games where they were in place. Never once have I had nostalgia for any sort of harsh death penalty, or understood why anyone found such things fun.
Yeah, sure, I got some funny stories out of the deal when I'd make desperate, horrific at the time, attempts to get my corpses back in whatever game it was, but it was never fun in itself. I didn't feel some sense of great adventure, satisfaction, or payoff. If I incurred a harsh death penalty of any sort too much, I'd just question myself on why I was wasting my time with the game when I could be doing more constructive things with my life.
Staying up all night desperately trying to level in FFXI and then dying a few times in a row and ending up will less xp/levels than I started the night with? Not fun. Being PKed by the army of players waiting outside of a safezone in L2 so that they could full-loot my corpse, with the items I spent weeks farming for? Not fun. Not being able to really play a game for awhile because a boss mob is sitting on my corpse and no one gives a damn to help me get it? Not fun.
Where is this mythical sense of "fear" - because it's never been there for me? It often sounds like someone would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to legitimately get that fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character. My only "fear" associated with such needlessly harsh death penalties would be that frustration with them would force me to swallow the bitter pill that an inordinate amount of my time will now have gone to waste, and confront the idea that I'm wasting my life away doing absolutely trivial, meaningless things.
If I'm wrong, then maybe someone can explain to me what makes these death penalties so appealing without simply repeating what has been said.
The question is valid. It wasn't the death penalty that was appealing in Ultima Online, it was that avoiding the penalty was something people actually cared about. I apologize but if FF 11 was your starting experience, you unfortunately missed out on this topic. Your adventures were adventures that could end in ultimate riches or failure, there was no script as to what had to happen, if you "did it right." Your options were only limited by your imagination.
Now a days someone can die, oh well no loss maybe 1/10000000 of your bank roll and you continue on your way. No loss other than the time wasted in whatever you were attempting to do.
What made those games fun was the community needed to be safer and to accomplish meaningful things. That the more effort you put in the greater the reward. Now-a-days its did you read the walk through and get the same great loot that every other player has. Features are missing and odds are you will never use more than 10-20 skills/buttons to play the entire game (maybe even just your mouse) and will never care if you die nor have any grand feelings of accomplishing anything in your hobby. You may even be entertained for a few months before you become bored. Hope this helps to understand the industry differences between now and then.
Never once have I had nostalgia for any sort of harsh death penalty, or understood why anyone found such things fun.
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
Where is this mythical sense of "fear" - because it's never been there for me? It often sounds like someone would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to legitimately get that fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character. My only "fear" associated with such needlessly harsh death penalties would be that frustration with them would force me to swallow the bitter pill that an inordinate amount of my time will now have gone to waste, and confront the idea that I'm wasting my life away doing absolutely trivial, meaningless things.
Your position is almost nonsensical to me. You say people would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to become fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character... so do you just not play games with character progression? I don't get it. If YOU don't care about the financial outcome of your character, why would you play a genre that almost always has a heavy emphasis on character progression, including amassing wealth?
BTW, what games did you play that had harsh death penalties? Because it's possible that if the game is just outright bad, you may not care enough about it at all and the harsh death penalty aspect may be totally lost on you because the game just sucks.
Never once have I had nostalgia for any sort of harsh death penalty, or understood why anyone found such things fun.
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
This is what everyone keeps saying, but I don't see it (and if it were an 'innate human phenomenon' then I wouldn't be able to honestly say that). There is no real risk, except for losing time, because it's a game set in a virtual world. I vaguely understand the idea of 'oh I put a lot of time and effort into such and such, therefore the reward is more satisfying', but I never related to it when it is something trivial like leveling up in a game. If I had to try, say, a difficult boss encounter many times before I finally beat it, that might be satisfying; but to be harshly punished each time I die for no apparent reason seems to encourage less 'risk-taking' if anything; I'd quit much sooner on that boss encounter in such an instance. Harsh death penalties amount ultimately to time lost. If I build up a large amount of lost time, which the game wants me to spend recovering from mistakes made (or even accidents), before I can get back to the fun parts of the game, that to me is the game telling me that it doesn't want me to play it.
Where is this mythical sense of "fear" - because it's never been there for me? It often sounds like someone would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to legitimately get that fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character. My only "fear" associated with such needlessly harsh death penalties would be that frustration with them would force me to swallow the bitter pill that an inordinate amount of my time will now have gone to waste, and confront the idea that I'm wasting my life away doing absolutely trivial, meaningless things.
Your position is almost nonsensical to me. You say people would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to become fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character... so do you just not play games with character progression? I don't get it. If YOU don't care about the financial outcome of your character, why would you play a genre that almost always has a heavy emphasis on character progression, including amassing wealth?
What I meant was that it seems one would have to lack all self-awareness to get themselves SO invested in the financial outcomes of their character that they experience 'fear' over the thought of losing virtual gold and items or the death of their avatar, or even an overblown sense of achievement when they do well, as if they *were* their character and such things mattered in the grand scheme of things, in order to be genuinely motivated in the ways being talked about here.
I'm somewhat invested in my characters because they represent investments of my rl time, and because failure to progress might mean that I am barred from interacting with certain other players, like my rl friends who play, and I enjoy seeing the possibilities of what my character can become and the challenges he can tackle, but if I catch myself getting too upset, I take a step back, remind myself that it is just a game, that having fun with others is what's important, and proceed to focus on that.
BTW, what games did you play that had harsh death penalties? Because it's possible that if the game is just outright bad, you may not care enough about it at all and the harsh death penalty aspect may be totally lost on you because the game just sucks.
Off the top of my head, FFXI, Lineage 2, EQ2 (to a lesser extent), an older more obscure game called Dark Ages (not 'of Camelot'), and D2 (though not technically an MMO, but an online game). Not bad games generally, but all hampered by harsh death penalties. Some had XP loss and leveling down, some had full-loot FFA PvP, etc.
Never once have I had nostalgia for any sort of harsh death penalty, or understood why anyone found such things fun.
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
This is what everyone keeps saying, but I don't see it (and if it were an 'innate human phenomenon' then I wouldn't be able to honestly say that). There is no real risk, except for losing time, because it's a game set in a virtual world. I vaguely understand the idea of 'oh I put a lot of time and effort into such and such, therefore the reward is more satisfying', but I never related to it when it is something trivial like leveling up in a game. If I had to try, say, a difficult boss encounter many times before I finally beat it, that might be satisfying; but to be harshly punished each time I die for no apparent reason seems to encourage less 'risk-taking' if anything; I'd quit much sooner on that boss encounter in such an instance. Harsh death penalties amount ultimately to time lost. If I build up a large amount of lost time, which the game wants me to spend recovering from mistakes made (or even accidents), before I can get back to the fun parts of the game, that to me is the game telling me that it doesn't want me to play it.
Innately doesn't mean everybody feels it. I'm saying it's a natural feeling that humans get, not something that we're told we should feel. And by the way, you probably get it too even if you don't get it from harsh death penalties in video games.
You say there's no real risk except for losing time, but that IS risk. If you care about your ingame avatar or your ingame gear or your ingame money AT ALL then there is risk in losing it. Just because it's in a virtual world doesn't mean it's not risky... it's just not AS risky as a similar situation in real life.
Where is this mythical sense of "fear" - because it's never been there for me? It often sounds like someone would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to legitimately get that fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character. My only "fear" associated with such needlessly harsh death penalties would be that frustration with them would force me to swallow the bitter pill that an inordinate amount of my time will now have gone to waste, and confront the idea that I'm wasting my life away doing absolutely trivial, meaningless things.
Your position is almost nonsensical to me. You say people would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to become fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character... so do you just not play games with character progression? I don't get it. If YOU don't care about the financial outcome of your character, why would you play a genre that almost always has a heavy emphasis on character progression, including amassing wealth?
What I meant was that it seems one would have to lack all self-awareness to get themselves SO invested in the financial outcomes of their character that they experience 'fear' over the thought of losing virtual gold and items or the death of their avatar, or even an overblown sense of achievement when they do well, as if they *were* their character and such things mattered in the grand scheme of things, in order to be genuinely motivated in the ways being talked about here.
I'm somewhat invested in my characters because they represent investments of my rl time, and because failure to progress might mean that I am barred from interacting with certain other players, like my rl friends who play, but if I catch myself getting too upset, I take a step back, remind myself that it is just a game, that having fun with others is what's important, and proceed to focus on that.
So it sounds like you just take issue with the degree to which we get into these games, not how we get into them. "Fear" may be a strong word to use, but I don't feel it's inaccurate necessarily. Fear of loss just means you don't want to lose it. I fear for my gear because I don't want to be killed and have it taken from me.
You say if you played a really hard boss battle over and over and eventually won, you'd feel satisfied by that. Couldn't a scenario like that be held to the same scrutiny you're displaying here? Considering it's just a video game.
BTW, what games did you play that had harsh death penalties? Because it's possible that if the game is just outright bad, you may not care enough about it at all and the harsh death penalty aspect may be totally lost on you because the game just sucks.
Off the top of my head, FFXI, Lineage 2, EQ2 (to a lesser extent), an older more obscure game called Dark Ages (not 'of Camelot'), and D2 (though not technically an MMO, but an online game). Not bad games generally, but all hampered by harsh death penalties. Some had XP loss and leveling down, some had full-loot FFA PvP, etc.
Yeah the only games on that list that I've played are FFXI and D2 so I can't really comment. FFXI seems to be a fine game, but I can't say the penalty for death was all THAT bad.
Innately doesn't mean everybody feels it. I'm saying it's a natural feeling that humans get, not something that we're told we should feel. And by the way, you probably get it too even if you don't get it from harsh death penalties in video games.
Maybe I do, but that would be irrelevant - what is the difference between someone like me who doesn't feel such things about games, and people who do? From my point of view, it honestly looks like the other group is better at letting themselves temporarily forget how comparatively trivial their in-game plights are compared to other, real life matters, or that they identify themselves to an unhealthy degree with their character so that they can actually feel a strong emotional reaction that is bound up with the fortune of said character. Ultimately, I'm saying that I don't understand how anyone can care so much that they think whatever reward the game has to offer is worth the arbitrary tedium and time-wasting that games like this might put them through, besides some ill-conceived sense of 'accomplishment' which sounds to me more like vain, rationalized masochism. I've been waiting for someone to tell me a way to look at these demands for 'fear' associated with harsh death penalties as coming from some nobler, self-aware outlook.
You say there's no real risk except for losing time, but that IS risk. If you care about your ingame avatar or your ingame gear or your ingame money AT ALL then there is risk in losing it. Just because it's in a virtual world doesn't mean it's not risky... it's just not AS risky as a similar situation in real life.
Those are not the same type of 'risk'. As I explained in a previous post, the 'risk' or 'fear' in an MMO is just risk of wasting time (more precisely, being confronted with the idea that one is purposely wasting time). Why is that a 'risk' or something to be 'feared'? Because then you have to come to terms with the idea that the whole activity, and consequently your life insofar as you've been spending it wasting time with this game, is utterly meaningless. That's not to say any game with this sort of penalty necessarily has to be played with such an attitude, but that is the only way I know how to understand this call for 'fearful' games. If you succeed at these games, it lets you deceive yourself into thinking that your activity still has some point to it - that your 'accomplishments', give that time meaning. I, personally, cannot relate, because I don't think any video game accomplishment can have any such power, and therefore a harsh death penalty, in and of itself, creates no motivating force for me.
So it sounds like you just take issue with the degree to which we get into these games, not how we get into them. "Fear" may be a strong word to use, but I don't feel it's inaccurate necessarily. Fear of loss just means you don't want to lose it. I fear for my gear because I don't want to be killed and have it taken from me.
If that is how you mean it then I have no real qualm with you, but the way some other people have been describing it in threads like this is makes it seem much stronger. They've been fetishizing this fear as though it was the only thing that could make them feel alive or something.
The weaker use of "fear" doesn't justify a harsh death penalty though. I don't want to lose my gear or xp either...so I'll play a game where I can't lose them. It's clearly not just 'not wanting to lose X' for people demanding harsh death penalties - they want to somehow glorify overcoming the difficulties that such penalties impose; difficulties which I see as pointless tedium and not worthy of said glorification.
You say if you played a really hard boss battle over and over and eventually won, you'd feel satisfied by that. Couldn't a scenario like that be held to the same scrutiny you're displaying here? Considering it's just a video game.
I certainly meant 'satisfied' in a weak sense. The same sense that mindlessly doing the skinner-box quests in any themepark game gives you, or the little rush of endorphins one gets from gaining a level. I might even have a moment of vanity where I consciously take pride in having done it; but I then check myself, reminding myself that it's not really a big deal at all. I'm not glorifying my own gaming habits, and you don't see me demanding of game developers that they provide more of this feeling of 'satisfaction'.
Yeah the only games on that list that I've played are FFXI and D2 so I can't really comment. FFXI seems to be a fine game, but I can't say the penalty for death was all THAT bad.
Losing 10% of the xp needed to reach your next level coupled with the ability to level *down* is pretty bad. It's not full-loot non-consensual PvP bad, but it's bad. They even add demoralizing sound effects, music, and animations when you do level down as if to remind you that it could take hours to gain back that xp in some cases and you should feel bad about it. Gear is strictly level-based, so you might lose access to that shiny piece of gear you just picked up, making it that much harder to get the level back (and that happens at max level too so, whoops, no longer eligible for endgame content and goodbye shiny raid-dropped gear). Not to mention that sometimes you die it is as much a fault of the game's mechanics or lag, etc., not player skill.
I'm describing the old FFXI btw - nowadays the speed at which experience is gained is much faster, and the method much easier, so the death penalty can't be considered as harsh as it was.
Like I said, I've had experiences where multiple deaths when I was tired left me losing days of progress for no good reason. Nobody finds that fun while it is happening to them, it's just frustrating. People rationalize it in retrospect and tell themselves their overall experience has somehow been better for it. From where I'm standing, it seems they are deluding themselves.
Innately doesn't mean everybody feels it. I'm saying it's a natural feeling that humans get, not something that we're told we should feel. And by the way, you probably get it too even if you don't get it from harsh death penalties in video games.
Maybe I do, but that would be irrelevant - what is the difference between someone like me who doesn't feel such things about games, and people who do? From my point of view, it honestly looks like the other group is better at letting themselves temporarily forget how comparatively trivial their in-game plights are compared to other, real life matters, or that they identify themselves to an unhealthy degree with their character so that they can actually feel a strong emotional reaction that is bound up with the fortune of said character. Ultimately, I'm saying that I don't understand how anyone can care so much that they think whatever reward the game has to offer is worth the arbitrary tedium and time-wasting that games like this might put them through, besides some ill-conceived sense of 'accomplishment' which sounds to me more like vain, rationalized masochism. I've been waiting for someone to tell me a way to look at these demands for 'fear' associated with harsh death penalties as coming from some nobler, self-aware outlook.
It may be irrelevent to the overall discussion but I was pointing it out because you said this: "This is what everyone keeps saying, but I don't see it (and if it were an 'innate human phenomenon' then I wouldn't be able to honestly say that). "
Nothing about a game that has harsh death penalties implies that it takes any more time than a game without harsh death penalties. In fact, it's often the opposite. In UO you can become somewhat viable by maxing out a few different types of characters in very little time compared to getting to max level in a lot of themepark games. So I think you're just wrong in your assumption about what a harsh death penalty means if you think there's inherently more time wasted in those games. And it looks like that is what you think because you mentioned the "arbitrary tedium and time-wasting that games like this might put them through"
You say there's no real risk except for losing time, but that IS risk. If you care about your ingame avatar or your ingame gear or your ingame money AT ALL then there is risk in losing it. Just because it's in a virtual world doesn't mean it's not risky... it's just not AS risky as a similar situation in real life.
Those are not the same type of 'risk'. As I explained in a previous post, the 'risk' or 'fear' in an MMO is just risk of wasting time (more precisely, being confronted with the idea that one is purposely wasting time). Why is that a 'risk' or something to be 'feared'? Because then you have to come to terms with the idea that the whole activity, and consequently your life insofar as you've been spending it wasting time with this game, is utterly meaningless. That's not to say any game with this sort of penalty necessarily has to be played with such an attitude, but that is the only way I know how to understand this call for 'fearful' games. If you succeed at these games, it lets you deceive yourself into thinking that your activity still has some point to it - that your 'accomplishments', give that time meaning. I, personally, cannot relate, because I don't think any video game accomplishment can have any such power, and therefore a harsh death penalty, in and of itself, creates no motivating force for me.
I've already explained to you why it's a "risk" or something to be "feared" but you don't really seem to care. By your logic any type of feeling you get from a video game is ultimately meaningless because video games are all technically a waste of time. I'm not sure why you choose this particular type of feeling in a video game to scrutinize, but obviously enjoy SOME kind of real emotion from playing video games, otherwise you wouldn't play them.
By the way, a lot of "risk" in life is simply risking your time, just like in a video game except often to a larger degree. Millions of people enjoy playing poker because of the thrill that comes along with winning. This thrill obviously is intensified (or totally created, for most) from the fact that they're using REAL money. Risking real money for the most part is just risking time. So it's actually a very similar risk to that in games, just to a larger degree.
So it sounds like you just take issue with the degree to which we get into these games, not how we get into them. "Fear" may be a strong word to use, but I don't feel it's inaccurate necessarily. Fear of loss just means you don't want to lose it. I fear for my gear because I don't want to be killed and have it taken from me.
If that is how you mean it then I have no real qualm with you, but the way some other people have been describing it in threads like this is makes it seem much stronger. They've been fetishizing this fear as though it was the only thing that could make them feel alive or something.
No, they are clearly just talking about the thrill that they get in dangerous situations. As OP pointed out, if you're farming in a dungeon in UO and it's been a while since you last banked, if you get attacked by another player, you're going to CARE more about that fight because you have a decent amount of loot on you. You caring about the fight just manifests itself into a fear-like emotion wherein sometimes you even get a little nervous, or get shaky hands. This doesn't mean you're gonna have trouble sleeping that night because you're afraid that guy is gonna come back and kill you in your bed, it just means having harsh death penalties makes you give a shit about dying.
The weaker use of "fear" doesn't justify a harsh death penalty though. I don't want to lose my gear or xp either...so I'll play a game where I can't lose them. It's clearly not just 'not wanting to lose X' for people demanding harsh death penalties - they want to somehow glorify overcoming the difficulties that such penalties impose; difficulties which I see as pointless tedium and not worthy of said glorification.
Well you're the one using the word glory, so I don't really think it's all that valid to shoot down an argument you made up. In reality ALL we're saying is if there's a chance we can lose X, then we'll care more about X. That should be a very simple and straightforward concept.
You say if you played a really hard boss battle over and over and eventually won, you'd feel satisfied by that. Couldn't a scenario like that be held to the same scrutiny you're displaying here? Considering it's just a video game.
I certainly meant 'satisfied' in a weak sense. The same sense that mindlessly doing the skinner-box quests in any themepark game gives you, or the little rush of endorphins one gets from gaining a level. I might even have a moment of vanity where I consciously take pride in having done it; but I then check myself, reminding myself that it's not really a big deal at all. I'm not glorifying my own gaming habits, and you don't see me demanding of game developers that they provide more of this feeling of 'satisfaction'.
So, again, you're just taking issue with the degree to which people get hooked on these games, not the type of game they're getting hooked on. I don't see how wanting a game with harsh death penalties is any less healthy emotionally than a themepark game that could take 100's of hours to grind up to to get the best gear. I'm sure there are just as many overly-attached psycho WoW players as there are overly-attached psycho UO players, if not more.
Nothing about a game that has harsh death penalties implies that it takes any more time than a game without harsh death penalties. In fact, it's often the opposite. In UO you can become somewhat viable by maxing out a few different types of characters in very little time compared to getting to max level in a lot of themepark games. So I think you're just wrong in your assumption about what a harsh death penalty means if you think there's inherently more time wasted in those games. And it looks like that is what you think because you mentioned the "arbitrary tedium and time-wasting that games like this might put them through"
I've never played UO, so that example is lost on me, but I don't need to argue that all games with harsh death penalties are more time consuming in general; all the people I'm hearing who want this 'sense of fear' have been tending to associate it closely with harsh death penalties, just as you are - so my point is that that association doesn't work because you're essentially asking exactly for a more time-wasting experience, and that is senseless when you should be able to generate the basic form of excitement you seek through other, possibly healthier means.
I've already explained to you why it's a "risk" or something to be "feared" but you don't really seem to care. By your logic any type of feeling you get from a video game is ultimately meaningless because video games are all technically a waste of time. I'm not sure why you choose this particular type of feeling in a video game to scrutinize, but obviously enjoy SOME kind of real emotion from playing video games, otherwise you wouldn't play them.
Your "explanation" (which consisted of 'risk vs. reward is a simple concept') was pretty incomplete and not really helpful for someone who doesn't already relate to your viewpoint.
You don't seem to differentiate between more superficial sensations like excitement over escaping death in a video game and 'real emotion', which is part of the problem. I admitted to having superficial sensations like 'satisfaction'. That is often enough to keep me playing them. However, if I have any 'real emotions' while playing a video game, I assure you it has nothing to do with the game mechanics. I chose this to scrutinize because this is the most commonly mentioned one I see on these forums, often phrased in the same terms, and it is also the most (in my view) overblown. If everyone specified that they were talking about basic 'adrenaline rushes' and not lauding some 'real emotion' they supposedly felt in the past in connection with a particular category of game mechanic, we would not be having this discussion.
By the way, a lot of "risk" in life is simply risking your time, just like in a video game except often to a larger degree. Millions of people enjoy playing poker because of the thrill that comes along with winning. This thrill obviously is intensified (or totally created, for most) from the fact that they're using REAL money. Risking real money for the most part is just risking time. So it's actually a very similar risk to that in games, just to a larger degree.
There are some similarities but they are differences of type except under an extremely broad definition of 'risk'. I'm not going to linger on this point though, because I don't think it's terribly important to our disagreement, it's just a disagreement over semantics.
No, they are clearly just talking about the thrill that they get in dangerous situations. As OP pointed out, if you're farming in a dungeon in UO and it's been a while since you last banked, if you get attacked by another player, you're going to CARE more about that fight because you have a decent amount of loot on you. You caring about the fight just manifests itself into a fear-like emotion wherein sometimes you even get a little nervous, or get shaky hands. This doesn't mean you're gonna have trouble sleeping that night because you're afraid that guy is gonna come back and kill you in your bed, it just means having harsh death penalties makes you give a shit about dying.
This was the type of superficial sensation I was talking about. To each his own if they get a rush in the moment from such situations - though it's the aftermath of that, when you do fail and die, that was my chief focus. It seems that, since they supposedly have experienced this reaction from this situation having to do with harsh death penalties, that people asking for harsh death penalties assume that only those sorts of mechanics and the situations they create can evoke equally pleasurable/exciting sensations in them (hence the title of this thread), which is the assumption I'm criticizing.
Well you're the one using the word glory, so I don't really think it's all that valid to shoot down an argument you made up. In reality ALL we're saying is if there's a chance we can lose X, then we'll care more about X. That should be a very simple and straightforward concept.
It's my analysis of the situation from my perspective, not an argument attributed to anyone.
The highlighted sentence is not a straightforward concept, it's a broad sweeping generalization. Not everything that one can lose is worth giving a damn about, and some things much less than others. Some people invest themselves disproportionately in trivial things, which I was accusing some here of, based on their overblown rhetoric. Actually, it's much more likely to me that such people are blowing things out of proportion and emphasizing the wrong things, leading to a misunderstanding of where their 'fun' comes from. Again, don't confuse genuine concern with base inclination.
So, again, you're just taking issue with the degree to which people get hooked on these games, not the type of game they're getting hooked on. I don't see how wanting a game with harsh death penalties is any less healthy emotionally than a themepark game that could take 100's of hours to grind up to to get the best gear. I'm sure there are just as many overly-attached psycho WoW players as there are overly-attached psycho UO players, if not more.
It is both the degree and location where emphasis is placed that I'm taking issue with - the two issues are intertwined in this case. I don't see how this paragraph is relevant at all. I was not arguing in favor of any type of game, or favoring other unhealthy obsessions.
Anyway, I don't think we're making much progress in understanding each other's viewpoints, so we may as well end it here.
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
Or you can just have bigger rewards with a bigger challenge as a gate keeper of who gets it. The market has spoken, and this seems to be the dominant design now.
Sure, you can like your risk. It is your prerogative to like anything. Others have no obligation to feel the same. The market decides base on supply & demand.
Nothing about a game that has harsh death penalties implies that it takes any more time than a game without harsh death penalties. In fact, it's often the opposite. In UO you can become somewhat viable by maxing out a few different types of characters in very little time compared to getting to max level in a lot of themepark games. So I think you're just wrong in your assumption about what a harsh death penalty means if you think there's inherently more time wasted in those games. And it looks like that is what you think because you mentioned the "arbitrary tedium and time-wasting that games like this might put them through"
I've never played UO, so that example is lost on me, but I don't need to argue that all games with harsh death penalties are more time consuming in general; all the people I'm hearing who want this 'sense of fear' have been tending to associate it closely with harsh death penalties, just as you are - so my point is that that association doesn't work because you're essentially asking exactly for a more time-wasting experience, and that is senseless when you should be able to generate the basic form of excitement you seek through other, possibly healthier means.
You absolutely need to argue for that point. Most harsh penalty games I can think of don't require nearly as much of a time sink as the games that don't. Games that have harsh death penalties are TYPICALLY more likely to be sandbox games than games that don't have harsh death penalties. And sandbox games are well known for the lack of "end game" content. In other words, the journey is the fun part, not the destination. So for a lot of sandbox games (and likewise games that have harsh death penalties), you need to devote very LITTLE time before you can have fun. Thempark games typically don't have penalties for death and yet they are notorious for their grinds being just an investment to get to the lategame.
You literally have it backwards. Harsh death penalties are designed to make each individual task more satisfying, because they're typically more risky.
I've already explained to you why it's a "risk" or something to be "feared" but you don't really seem to care. By your logic any type of feeling you get from a video game is ultimately meaningless because video games are all technically a waste of time. I'm not sure why you choose this particular type of feeling in a video game to scrutinize, but obviously enjoy SOME kind of real emotion from playing video games, otherwise you wouldn't play them.
Your "explanation" (which consisted of 'risk vs. reward is a simple concept') was pretty incomplete and not really helpful for someone who doesn't already relate to your viewpoint.
It consisted of a lot more than that. The possibility of loss will cause you to take things for granted less. This is a tale as old as time. You don't know what you've got until it's gone. For a lot of us, the rush of adrenaline we get in a game is because we know what the consequences are, even if it's just subconsciously.
This is true at SOME LEVEL for almost any human, so I can't fathom how you don't even UNDERSTAND why people would prefer a game with risk/reward. I can understand why you personally may not get that thrill if you're faced with a situation that may cause you to lose the progress you've just made, but I don't get how you don't even understand how other people get it. Here's an exaggerated example to illustrate the fundamental concept: If you're playing poker for fun with your friends, you probably won't be all that nervous. But if you decide to play poker with your life savings, chances are you're going to become more nervous. That's because there's more on the line. People who want harsh death penalties want to feel like there's more on the line than just a couple of minutes walk back to where they were.
You don't seem to differentiate between more superficial sensations like excitement over escaping death in a video game and 'real emotion', which is part of the problem. I admitted to having superficial sensations like 'satisfaction'. That is often enough to keep me playing them. However, if I have any 'real emotions' while playing a video game, I assure you it has nothing to do with the game mechanics. I chose this to scrutinize because this is the most commonly mentioned one I see on these forums, often phrased in the same terms, and it is also the most (in my view) overblown. If everyone specified that they were talking about basic 'adrenaline rushes' and not lauding some 'real emotion' they supposedly felt in the past in connection with a particular category of game mechanic, we would not be having this discussion.
It sounds like you just don't like him using the word "fear." Whatever you want to call it, we're talking about the thrill you get when you're in danger in games like UO, EQ, even single player games like Dark Souls. You say that's a "real emotion" whereas excitement from just beating a boss is a "superficial sensation." This is a pointless distinction. I agree that the feeling you get in a harsh death penalty game is probably MORE INTENSE, but that's the whole point! Basically your argument is just coming down to: You shouldn't care this much about video games. Well sorry, but who are you to say how much we should or shouldn't care about our games?
By the way, a lot of "risk" in life is simply risking your time, just like in a video game except often to a larger degree. Millions of people enjoy playing poker because of the thrill that comes along with winning. This thrill obviously is intensified (or totally created, for most) from the fact that they're using REAL money. Risking real money for the most part is just risking time. So it's actually a very similar risk to that in games, just to a larger degree.
There are some similarities but they are differences of type except under an extremely broad definition of 'risk'. I'm not going to linger on this point though, because I don't think it's terribly important to our disagreement, it's just a disagreement over semantics.
It's not a broad definition at all, it's just the definition. And I don't think it's just arguing over semantics, I think it's somewhat important. You seem to suggest that there's a disconnect between "real world" emotions and the kind of emotions we SHOULD be feeling for our virtual worlds. Well I'm pointing out that they're similar emotions, just to a lesser degree. The risk I would feel playing poker with my own money is not fundamentally different from the risk I would feel crawling through a dungeon in UO with a lot of loot on me. There's a difference of degree, but that's all.
No, they are clearly just talking about the thrill that they get in dangerous situations. As OP pointed out, if you're farming in a dungeon in UO and it's been a while since you last banked, if you get attacked by another player, you're going to CARE more about that fight because you have a decent amount of loot on you. You caring about the fight just manifests itself into a fear-like emotion wherein sometimes you even get a little nervous, or get shaky hands. This doesn't mean you're gonna have trouble sleeping that night because you're afraid that guy is gonna come back and kill you in your bed, it just means having harsh death penalties makes you give a shit about dying.
This was the type of superficial sensation I was talking about. To each his own if they get a rush in the moment from such situations - though it's the aftermath of that, when you do fail and die, that was my chief focus.
The aftermath of the situation (if you fail) is what causes you to have that adrenaline rush in the first place. You can't have that rush without occasionally feeling the loss, that's the whole point.
It seems that, since they supposedly have experienced this reaction from this situation having to do with harsh death penalties, that people asking for harsh death penalties assume that only those sorts of mechanics and the situations they create can evoke equally pleasurable/exciting sensations in them (hence the title of this thread), which is the assumption I'm criticizing.
What other kind of mechanic will give us that sensation? Because I'm pretty sure whatever you can think of is going to be practically identical to what we want. I'm not sure how you're not getting this: We want to CARE about the game. For us the best way to care about the things in the game is to have the risk of losing them. And the level of risk has to be comparable to how difficult it is to attain the gear in the first place, otherwise immersion will be broken. You can't have a FULL LOOT game that also has gear that you grind 100 hours to get obviously. The ratio of time it takes to get the item compared to time it takes to lose it just wouldn't work.
Well you're the one using the word glory, so I don't really think it's all that valid to shoot down an argument you made up. In reality ALL we're saying is if there's a chance we can lose X, then we'll care more about X. That should be a very simple and straightforward concept.
It's my analysis of the situation from my perspective, not an argument attributed to anyone.
The highlighted sentence is not a straightforward concept, it's a broad sweeping generalization. Not everything that one can lose is worth giving a damn about, and some things much less than others. Some people invest themselves disproportionately in trivial things, which I was accusing some here of, based on their overblown rhetoric. Actually, it's much more likely to me that such people are blowing things out of proportion and emphasizing the wrong things, leading to a misunderstanding of where their 'fun' comes from. Again, don't confuse genuine concern with base inclination.
No here you're just misunderstanding. I didn't at all say that having the possibility of losing something will make you objectively "care" about it. I'm saying adding on the possibility of losing something will make you care MORE about an item. Sure, some people may still just not give a shit about whatever gold they lose, and some people in themepark games may care way too much about gold/items that they CAN'T lose. But that doesn't change what I'm saying which is that adding the risk of losing an item, will cause you to care more about it.
So, again, you're just taking issue with the degree to which people get hooked on these games, not the type of game they're getting hooked on. I don't see how wanting a game with harsh death penalties is any less healthy emotionally than a themepark game that could take 100's of hours to grind up to to get the best gear. I'm sure there are just as many overly-attached psycho WoW players as there are overly-attached psycho UO players, if not more.
It is both the degree and location where emphasis is placed that I'm taking issue with - the two issues are intertwined in this case. I don't see how this paragraph is relevant at all. I was not arguing in favor of any type of game, or favoring other unhealthy obsessions.
It's relevant because your argument seems to have shifted from "I don't understand why people want harsh death penalties" to "they shouldn't have these emotions about a virtual world." So I'm pointing that shift out. I'm telling you that your problem doesn't actually seem to be that you can't grasp the concept of risk/reward, your problem now seems to be that you don't think people should care about risk/reward in a video game because hey... it's just a video game.
The second half of my paragraph is pointing out that if you really are just worried about how emotionally invested people get into video games, you're looking at the wrong mechanic. In general the people playing the themepark games are the ones that are quitting their jobs and leaving their spouses to play.
Anyway, I don't think we're making much progress in understanding each other's viewpoints, so we may as well end it here.
Uh... well that's fine but it's a bit uncouth to leave an argument AFTER you've made a bunch of points. It's like saying "here's why I'm right... now don't respond!"
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
Or you can just have bigger rewards with a bigger challenge as a gate keeper of who gets it. The market has spoken, and this seems to be the dominant design now.
Sure, you can like your risk. It is your prerogative to like anything. Others have no obligation to feel the same. The market decides base on supply & demand.
Sorry but why are you quoting me for this post? Nothing you said contradicts what I said. In fact, I deliberately said I can't force him to do anything, but I would explain to him why some people do feel like that. So why are you telling me that others have no obligation to feel the same? I know that. He asked why people like it, I told him.
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
Or you can just have bigger rewards with a bigger challenge as a gate keeper of who gets it. The market has spoken, and this seems to be the dominant design now.
Sure, you can like your risk. It is your prerogative to like anything. Others have no obligation to feel the same. The market decides base on supply & demand.
Sorry but why are you quoting me for this post? Nothing you said contradicts what I said. In fact, I deliberately said I can't force him to do anything, but I would explain to him why some people do feel like that. So why are you telling me that others have no obligation to feel the same? I know that. He asked why people like it, I told him.
I am not disagreeing with what i quoted. I am just pointing out a different way of having rewards. And for the "no obligation" sentence, i am merely re-stating for effect, and clarity. I was not trying to imply that you do not know it.
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
Or you can just have bigger rewards with a bigger challenge as a gate keeper of who gets it. The market has spoken, and this seems to be the dominant design now.
Sure, you can like your risk. It is your prerogative to like anything. Others have no obligation to feel the same. The market decides base on supply & demand.
Sorry but why are you quoting me for this post? Nothing you said contradicts what I said. In fact, I deliberately said I can't force him to do anything, but I would explain to him why some people do feel like that. So why are you telling me that others have no obligation to feel the same? I know that. He asked why people like it, I told him.
I am not disagreeing with what i quoted. I am just pointing out a different way of having rewards. And for the "no obligation" sentence, i am merely re-stating for effect, and clarity. I was not trying to imply that you do not know it.
In fact, it is echoing what you have said.
Yes, there are other ways of having rewards. And it's not like a game with harsh death penalties uses JUST the concept of risk/reward to reward their players. But the concept of risk/reward is the backbone of the desire for less forgiving games.
Yes, there are other ways of having rewards. And it's not like a game with harsh death penalties uses JUST the concept of risk/reward to reward their players. But the concept of risk/reward is the backbone of the desire for less forgiving games.
When you say "risk/reward", you mean risk and/or rewards right? Because it is possible to do so with just one or the other. You do not always need both.
And you are right about harsh penalty. D3 hard core mode is as harsh as it gets. But it also let you tune the level of reward by changing the level of challenge with a difficulty slide. So multiple things can be in-play at the same time.
Yes, there are other ways of having rewards. And it's not like a game with harsh death penalties uses JUST the concept of risk/reward to reward their players. But the concept of risk/reward is the backbone of the desire for less forgiving games.
When you say "risk/reward", you mean risk and/or rewards right? Because it is possible to do so with just one or the other. You do not always need both.
And you are right about harsh penalty. D3 hard core mode is as harsh as it gets. But it also let you tune the level of reward by changing the level of challenge with a difficulty slide. So multiple things can be in-play at the same time.
No I mean risk AND reward. I mean that in general riskier situations feel more rewarding when you prevail. That's the backbone for wanting harsh death penalties. If you know the situation has consequences, people will tend to feel more satisfied and rewarded if they succeed in those situations.
2 problems with D3 hardcore mode:
1. It's not an mmo setting. I enjoy the persistence of MMOs. I like building things other people can use and admire like rune library/vendor malls in UO. D3 doesn't have that. Just because we like the idea of risk/reward, doesn't mean we're going to play ANY game that has it.
2. It's too risky! Having an APPROPRIATE amount of risk compared to how long it takes to get these items or XP or whatever it is you're risking is totally key to the equation. If you have too little risk, people won't care as much because... there's no danger, there's nothing to worry about. If you have too MUCH risk, people won't care about it because it's futile. You spend hours and hours and hours and hours grinding for something only to have it lost in an instant... breaks the immersion. Obviously the level of risk to reward ratio changes from player to player, some people may like things super risky, some may like things not so risky, but it's important to have a good balance.
Yes, there are other ways of having rewards. And it's not like a game with harsh death penalties uses JUST the concept of risk/reward to reward their players. But the concept of risk/reward is the backbone of the desire for less forgiving games.
When you say "risk/reward", you mean risk and/or rewards right? Because it is possible to do so with just one or the other. You do not always need both.
And you are right about harsh penalty. D3 hard core mode is as harsh as it gets. But it also let you tune the level of reward by changing the level of challenge with a difficulty slide. So multiple things can be in-play at the same time.
No I mean risk AND reward. I mean that in general riskier situations feel more rewarding when you prevail. That's the backbone for wanting harsh death penalties. If you know the situation has consequences, people will tend to feel more satisfied and rewarded if they succeed in those situations.
2 problems with D3 hardcore mode:
1. It's not an mmo setting. I enjoy the persistence of MMOs. I like building things other people can use and admire like rune library/vendor malls in UO. D3 doesn't have that. Just because we like the idea of risk/reward, doesn't mean we're going to play ANY game that has it.
2. It's too risky! Having an APPROPRIATE amount of risk compared to how long it takes to get these items or XP or whatever it is you're risking is totally key to the equation. If you have too little risk, people won't care as much because... there's no danger, there's nothing to worry about. If you have too MUCH risk, people won't care about it because it's futile. You spend hours and hours and hours and hours grinding for something only to have it lost in an instant... breaks the immersion. Obviously the level of risk to reward ratio changes from player to player, some people may like things super risky, some may like things not so risky, but it's important to have a good balance.
Then i disagree. I think you can have reward with a level of challenge associated with it, without risk. Risk is *a* method to create that reward, but NOT the only one.
Both (1) & (2) are personal preferences. And i totally agree you don't have to like a game just because one aspect is to your liking. So i don't have a disagreement to (1) and (2) since that is your preference. In fact, it is too risky for me too. That is why i play soft-core.
Thx OP, your write up on EQ1 is exactlly what I also have been missing all these years. I hope EQ Next will be like EQ1. I gave up long ago (after a decade of waiting) for a game with that much excitement. I did have a rogue as one of my classes and loved retrieving players corpses. Most mobs couldn't see the rogue but some could so it was always exciting too. And my favorite "Train to zone, Train to zone" in Mistmoore : ) The devs changed my name from Trustmee to I forgot, lame name, so I attacked guards in Freeport and left 50 corpses laying around the old auction area. Pissed them off big time. They would appear in front of my toon as a huge powerfull looking toon and try to lecture me. As a rogue I liked my 1 year old name of Trustmee...rambling on now it seems..still miss that game just needs to be revamped with AOC graphics and leave the old EQ game rules in. I would join in a sec.
Yes, there are other ways of having rewards. And it's not like a game with harsh death penalties uses JUST the concept of risk/reward to reward their players. But the concept of risk/reward is the backbone of the desire for less forgiving games.
When you say "risk/reward", you mean risk and/or rewards right? Because it is possible to do so with just one or the other. You do not always need both.
And you are right about harsh penalty. D3 hard core mode is as harsh as it gets. But it also let you tune the level of reward by changing the level of challenge with a difficulty slide. So multiple things can be in-play at the same time.
No I mean risk AND reward. I mean that in general riskier situations feel more rewarding when you prevail. That's the backbone for wanting harsh death penalties. If you know the situation has consequences, people will tend to feel more satisfied and rewarded if they succeed in those situations.
2 problems with D3 hardcore mode:
1. It's not an mmo setting. I enjoy the persistence of MMOs. I like building things other people can use and admire like rune library/vendor malls in UO. D3 doesn't have that. Just because we like the idea of risk/reward, doesn't mean we're going to play ANY game that has it.
2. It's too risky! Having an APPROPRIATE amount of risk compared to how long it takes to get these items or XP or whatever it is you're risking is totally key to the equation. If you have too little risk, people won't care as much because... there's no danger, there's nothing to worry about. If you have too MUCH risk, people won't care about it because it's futile. You spend hours and hours and hours and hours grinding for something only to have it lost in an instant... breaks the immersion. Obviously the level of risk to reward ratio changes from player to player, some people may like things super risky, some may like things not so risky, but it's important to have a good balance.
Then i disagree. I think you can have reward with a level of challenge associated with it, without risk. Risk is *a* method to create that reward, but NOT the only one.
Ugh. You misunderstand. I've never said the only way to have reward is with risk. In fact I said the exact opposite just like... literally 20 minutes ago. But risk and reward is what I'm talking about. You can have reward without risk, you can have risk without reward.
Both (1) & (2) are personal preferences. And i totally agree you don't have to like a game just because one aspect is to your liking. So i don't have a disagreement to (1) and (2) since that is your preference. In fact, it is too risky for me too. That is why i play soft-core.
I can't remember if it was you (I'm nearly certain it was) but somebody was making the point that we should just be happy with the other, non-mmo games that have harsh death penalties... like D3. MMOs with harsh death penalties don't really exist much anymore so we should stop asking for them on the forums and play games like D3.
Ugh. You misunderstand. I've never said the only way to have reward is with risk. In fact I said the exact opposite just like... literally 20 minutes ago. But risk and reward is what I'm talking about. You can have reward without risk, you can have risk without reward.
I can't remember if it was you (I'm nearly certain it was) but somebody was making the point that we should just be happy with the other, non-mmo games that have harsh death penalties... like D3. MMOs with harsh death penalties don't really exist much anymore so we should stop asking for them on the forums and play games like D3.
Ah ok ... no problem. We are now straight on the issue of risk.
It may be me. But i don't think i would ask people to actually play D3. What i would have said .. if i want to raise the issue .. is
a) D3 has a perma-death, it is an option if that is what you want,
b) there is no MMO with harsh death penalty, and i certainly agree that asking for them on a forum, is useless.
But i would not go as far to say you cannot express your preference. It is one thing to debate if it will result in a change (i do not), but i totally respect your right to state it. Just as i would state mine.
Holop: played some type of pen and paper role playing game (which have heavy death penalties), and played earlier MMOs which closely represented those RPGs and hence also had death penalties).
Twrule: Never played pen and paper RPG (where you can spend weeks or months on a character only to see them die and be gone forever), and never played earlier MMOs that had harsh death penalties. Or, if he did play an MMO with a death penalty, he wasn't used to it and hated it. And, he may also have started gaming with a console.
Simply different life experiences lending to opposite opinions on the matter that can't be reconciled.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Holop: played some type of pen and paper role playing game (which have heavy death penalties), and played earlier MMOs which closely represented those RPGs and hence also had death penalties).
Twrule: Never played pen and paper RPG (where you can spend weeks or months on a character only to see them die and be gone forever), and never played earlier MMOs that had harsh death penalties. Or, if he did play an MMO with a death penalty, he wasn't used to it and hated it. And, he may also have started gaming with a console.
Simply different life experiences lending to opposite opinions on the matter that can't be reconciled.
I played a fair bit of pen and paper RPGs in my younger days and none of them had heavy death penalties. If your character happened to die during a campaign, you simply rolled a new one for the next session and the GM adjusted the story to the fact. The GM never had us replay last week's encounter just because one of the characters died.
Heck, if your character died in a campaign, you could just bring him/her back when the next campaign started.
Pen and Paper RPGs tend to be much closer to WoW in playstyle than a game like EQ or UO.
Holop: played some type of pen and paper role playing game (which have heavy death penalties), and played earlier MMOs which closely represented those RPGs and hence also had death penalties).
Twrule: Never played pen and paper RPG (where you can spend weeks or months on a character only to see them die and be gone forever), and never played earlier MMOs that had harsh death penalties. Or, if he did play an MMO with a death penalty, he wasn't used to it and hated it. And, he may also have started gaming with a console.
Simply different life experiences lending to opposite opinions on the matter that can't be reconciled.
How about me? I played pnp RPG (AD&D) in grad school, and played UO beta and EQ. In fact, i also played a precursor of MMO called Kingdom of Drakkar.
And yet i hold a completely different opinion from Holop. I totally reject old classic MMO, and embrace f2p modern MMOs which are better games than virtual worlds.
Comments
Isn't the elimination of non-consensual pvp one reason why the fear of death is all but gone?
No. Fear of death in this case is talking about what happens after you die, not how you die or who kills you.
Man, the MMORPG.com forums are obsessed with this topic. Pretty sure we've been having this same discussion for about the entire life-cycle of this website with no progression of ideas...
Anyway, I may as well toss my 2 cents into the perpetual samsara of thoughts that is these forums:
I never played UO or EQ1, but I did start my MMO career back when games with these sorts of mechanics were common, and played several games where they were in place. Never once have I had nostalgia for any sort of harsh death penalty, or understood why anyone found such things fun.
Yeah, sure, I got some funny stories out of the deal when I'd make desperate, horrific at the time, attempts to get my corpses back in whatever game it was, but it was never fun in itself. I didn't feel some sense of great adventure, satisfaction, or payoff. If I incurred a harsh death penalty of any sort too much, I'd just question myself on why I was wasting my time with the game when I could be doing more constructive things with my life.
Staying up all night desperately trying to level in FFXI and then dying a few times in a row and ending up will less xp/levels than I started the night with? Not fun. Being PKed by the army of players waiting outside of a safezone in L2 so that they could full-loot my corpse, with the items I spent weeks farming for? Not fun. Not being able to really play a game for awhile because a boss mob is sitting on my corpse and no one gives a damn to help me get it? Not fun.
Where is this mythical sense of "fear" - because it's never been there for me? It often sounds like someone would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to legitimately get that fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character. My only "fear" associated with such needlessly harsh death penalties would be that frustration with them would force me to swallow the bitter pill that an inordinate amount of my time will now have gone to waste, and confront the idea that I'm wasting my life away doing absolutely trivial, meaningless things.
If I'm wrong, then maybe someone can explain to me what makes these death penalties so appealing without simply repeating what has been said.
Now a days someone can die, oh well no loss maybe 1/10000000 of your bank roll and you continue on your way. No loss other than the time wasted in whatever you were attempting to do.
What made those games fun was the community needed to be safer and to accomplish meaningful things. That the more effort you put in the greater the reward. Now-a-days its did you read the walk through and get the same great loot that every other player has. Features are missing and odds are you will never use more than 10-20 skills/buttons to play the entire game (maybe even just your mouse) and will never care if you die nor have any grand feelings of accomplishing anything in your hobby. You may even be entertained for a few months before you become bored. Hope this helps to understand the industry differences between now and then.
Well I can't force you to have those feelings but if you actually want to understand WHY some people do like consequences upon death, then I'll tell you. It's really, really simple. Risk/reward. It's an innate human phenomenon that basically means the riskier the activity, the more rewarding the success. Once you learn about this very common concept, you should have no problem understanding why some people prefer games that have riskier atmospheres.
Your position is almost nonsensical to me. You say people would have to work themselves into a total lack of self-awareness to become fascinated with the financial outcomes of their character... so do you just not play games with character progression? I don't get it. If YOU don't care about the financial outcome of your character, why would you play a genre that almost always has a heavy emphasis on character progression, including amassing wealth?
BTW, what games did you play that had harsh death penalties? Because it's possible that if the game is just outright bad, you may not care enough about it at all and the harsh death penalty aspect may be totally lost on you because the game just sucks.
Innately doesn't mean everybody feels it. I'm saying it's a natural feeling that humans get, not something that we're told we should feel. And by the way, you probably get it too even if you don't get it from harsh death penalties in video games.
You say there's no real risk except for losing time, but that IS risk. If you care about your ingame avatar or your ingame gear or your ingame money AT ALL then there is risk in losing it. Just because it's in a virtual world doesn't mean it's not risky... it's just not AS risky as a similar situation in real life.
So it sounds like you just take issue with the degree to which we get into these games, not how we get into them. "Fear" may be a strong word to use, but I don't feel it's inaccurate necessarily. Fear of loss just means you don't want to lose it. I fear for my gear because I don't want to be killed and have it taken from me.
You say if you played a really hard boss battle over and over and eventually won, you'd feel satisfied by that. Couldn't a scenario like that be held to the same scrutiny you're displaying here? Considering it's just a video game.
Yeah the only games on that list that I've played are FFXI and D2 so I can't really comment. FFXI seems to be a fine game, but I can't say the penalty for death was all THAT bad.
It may be irrelevent to the overall discussion but I was pointing it out because you said this: "This is what everyone keeps saying, but I don't see it (and if it were an 'innate human phenomenon' then I wouldn't be able to honestly say that). "
Nothing about a game that has harsh death penalties implies that it takes any more time than a game without harsh death penalties. In fact, it's often the opposite. In UO you can become somewhat viable by maxing out a few different types of characters in very little time compared to getting to max level in a lot of themepark games. So I think you're just wrong in your assumption about what a harsh death penalty means if you think there's inherently more time wasted in those games. And it looks like that is what you think because you mentioned the "arbitrary tedium and time-wasting that games like this might put them through"
I've already explained to you why it's a "risk" or something to be "feared" but you don't really seem to care. By your logic any type of feeling you get from a video game is ultimately meaningless because video games are all technically a waste of time. I'm not sure why you choose this particular type of feeling in a video game to scrutinize, but obviously enjoy SOME kind of real emotion from playing video games, otherwise you wouldn't play them.
By the way, a lot of "risk" in life is simply risking your time, just like in a video game except often to a larger degree. Millions of people enjoy playing poker because of the thrill that comes along with winning. This thrill obviously is intensified (or totally created, for most) from the fact that they're using REAL money. Risking real money for the most part is just risking time. So it's actually a very similar risk to that in games, just to a larger degree.
No, they are clearly just talking about the thrill that they get in dangerous situations. As OP pointed out, if you're farming in a dungeon in UO and it's been a while since you last banked, if you get attacked by another player, you're going to CARE more about that fight because you have a decent amount of loot on you. You caring about the fight just manifests itself into a fear-like emotion wherein sometimes you even get a little nervous, or get shaky hands. This doesn't mean you're gonna have trouble sleeping that night because you're afraid that guy is gonna come back and kill you in your bed, it just means having harsh death penalties makes you give a shit about dying.
Well you're the one using the word glory, so I don't really think it's all that valid to shoot down an argument you made up. In reality ALL we're saying is if there's a chance we can lose X, then we'll care more about X. That should be a very simple and straightforward concept.
So, again, you're just taking issue with the degree to which people get hooked on these games, not the type of game they're getting hooked on. I don't see how wanting a game with harsh death penalties is any less healthy emotionally than a themepark game that could take 100's of hours to grind up to to get the best gear. I'm sure there are just as many overly-attached psycho WoW players as there are overly-attached psycho UO players, if not more.
Anyway, I don't think we're making much progress in understanding each other's viewpoints, so we may as well end it here.
Or you can just have bigger rewards with a bigger challenge as a gate keeper of who gets it. The market has spoken, and this seems to be the dominant design now.
Sure, you can like your risk. It is your prerogative to like anything. Others have no obligation to feel the same. The market decides base on supply & demand.
You absolutely need to argue for that point. Most harsh penalty games I can think of don't require nearly as much of a time sink as the games that don't. Games that have harsh death penalties are TYPICALLY more likely to be sandbox games than games that don't have harsh death penalties. And sandbox games are well known for the lack of "end game" content. In other words, the journey is the fun part, not the destination. So for a lot of sandbox games (and likewise games that have harsh death penalties), you need to devote very LITTLE time before you can have fun. Thempark games typically don't have penalties for death and yet they are notorious for their grinds being just an investment to get to the lategame.
You literally have it backwards. Harsh death penalties are designed to make each individual task more satisfying, because they're typically more risky.
It consisted of a lot more than that. The possibility of loss will cause you to take things for granted less. This is a tale as old as time. You don't know what you've got until it's gone. For a lot of us, the rush of adrenaline we get in a game is because we know what the consequences are, even if it's just subconsciously.
This is true at SOME LEVEL for almost any human, so I can't fathom how you don't even UNDERSTAND why people would prefer a game with risk/reward. I can understand why you personally may not get that thrill if you're faced with a situation that may cause you to lose the progress you've just made, but I don't get how you don't even understand how other people get it. Here's an exaggerated example to illustrate the fundamental concept: If you're playing poker for fun with your friends, you probably won't be all that nervous. But if you decide to play poker with your life savings, chances are you're going to become more nervous. That's because there's more on the line. People who want harsh death penalties want to feel like there's more on the line than just a couple of minutes walk back to where they were.
It sounds like you just don't like him using the word "fear." Whatever you want to call it, we're talking about the thrill you get when you're in danger in games like UO, EQ, even single player games like Dark Souls. You say that's a "real emotion" whereas excitement from just beating a boss is a "superficial sensation." This is a pointless distinction. I agree that the feeling you get in a harsh death penalty game is probably MORE INTENSE, but that's the whole point! Basically your argument is just coming down to: You shouldn't care this much about video games. Well sorry, but who are you to say how much we should or shouldn't care about our games?
It's not a broad definition at all, it's just the definition. And I don't think it's just arguing over semantics, I think it's somewhat important. You seem to suggest that there's a disconnect between "real world" emotions and the kind of emotions we SHOULD be feeling for our virtual worlds. Well I'm pointing out that they're similar emotions, just to a lesser degree. The risk I would feel playing poker with my own money is not fundamentally different from the risk I would feel crawling through a dungeon in UO with a lot of loot on me. There's a difference of degree, but that's all.
The aftermath of the situation (if you fail) is what causes you to have that adrenaline rush in the first place. You can't have that rush without occasionally feeling the loss, that's the whole point.
What other kind of mechanic will give us that sensation? Because I'm pretty sure whatever you can think of is going to be practically identical to what we want. I'm not sure how you're not getting this: We want to CARE about the game. For us the best way to care about the things in the game is to have the risk of losing them. And the level of risk has to be comparable to how difficult it is to attain the gear in the first place, otherwise immersion will be broken. You can't have a FULL LOOT game that also has gear that you grind 100 hours to get obviously. The ratio of time it takes to get the item compared to time it takes to lose it just wouldn't work.
No here you're just misunderstanding. I didn't at all say that having the possibility of losing something will make you objectively "care" about it. I'm saying adding on the possibility of losing something will make you care MORE about an item. Sure, some people may still just not give a shit about whatever gold they lose, and some people in themepark games may care way too much about gold/items that they CAN'T lose. But that doesn't change what I'm saying which is that adding the risk of losing an item, will cause you to care more about it.
It's relevant because your argument seems to have shifted from "I don't understand why people want harsh death penalties" to "they shouldn't have these emotions about a virtual world." So I'm pointing that shift out. I'm telling you that your problem doesn't actually seem to be that you can't grasp the concept of risk/reward, your problem now seems to be that you don't think people should care about risk/reward in a video game because hey... it's just a video game.
The second half of my paragraph is pointing out that if you really are just worried about how emotionally invested people get into video games, you're looking at the wrong mechanic. In general the people playing the themepark games are the ones that are quitting their jobs and leaving their spouses to play.
Uh... well that's fine but it's a bit uncouth to leave an argument AFTER you've made a bunch of points. It's like saying "here's why I'm right... now don't respond!"
Sorry but why are you quoting me for this post? Nothing you said contradicts what I said. In fact, I deliberately said I can't force him to do anything, but I would explain to him why some people do feel like that. So why are you telling me that others have no obligation to feel the same? I know that. He asked why people like it, I told him.
I am not disagreeing with what i quoted. I am just pointing out a different way of having rewards. And for the "no obligation" sentence, i am merely re-stating for effect, and clarity. I was not trying to imply that you do not know it.
In fact, it is echoing what you have said.
Yes, there are other ways of having rewards. And it's not like a game with harsh death penalties uses JUST the concept of risk/reward to reward their players. But the concept of risk/reward is the backbone of the desire for less forgiving games.
When you say "risk/reward", you mean risk and/or rewards right? Because it is possible to do so with just one or the other. You do not always need both.
And you are right about harsh penalty. D3 hard core mode is as harsh as it gets. But it also let you tune the level of reward by changing the level of challenge with a difficulty slide. So multiple things can be in-play at the same time.
No I mean risk AND reward. I mean that in general riskier situations feel more rewarding when you prevail. That's the backbone for wanting harsh death penalties. If you know the situation has consequences, people will tend to feel more satisfied and rewarded if they succeed in those situations.
2 problems with D3 hardcore mode:
1. It's not an mmo setting. I enjoy the persistence of MMOs. I like building things other people can use and admire like rune library/vendor malls in UO. D3 doesn't have that. Just because we like the idea of risk/reward, doesn't mean we're going to play ANY game that has it.
2. It's too risky! Having an APPROPRIATE amount of risk compared to how long it takes to get these items or XP or whatever it is you're risking is totally key to the equation. If you have too little risk, people won't care as much because... there's no danger, there's nothing to worry about. If you have too MUCH risk, people won't care about it because it's futile. You spend hours and hours and hours and hours grinding for something only to have it lost in an instant... breaks the immersion. Obviously the level of risk to reward ratio changes from player to player, some people may like things super risky, some may like things not so risky, but it's important to have a good balance.
Then i disagree. I think you can have reward with a level of challenge associated with it, without risk. Risk is *a* method to create that reward, but NOT the only one.
Both (1) & (2) are personal preferences. And i totally agree you don't have to like a game just because one aspect is to your liking. So i don't have a disagreement to (1) and (2) since that is your preference. In fact, it is too risky for me too. That is why i play soft-core.
Ugh. You misunderstand. I've never said the only way to have reward is with risk. In fact I said the exact opposite just like... literally 20 minutes ago. But risk and reward is what I'm talking about. You can have reward without risk, you can have risk without reward.
I can't remember if it was you (I'm nearly certain it was) but somebody was making the point that we should just be happy with the other, non-mmo games that have harsh death penalties... like D3. MMOs with harsh death penalties don't really exist much anymore so we should stop asking for them on the forums and play games like D3.
Ah ok ... no problem. We are now straight on the issue of risk.
It may be me. But i don't think i would ask people to actually play D3. What i would have said .. if i want to raise the issue .. is
a) D3 has a perma-death, it is an option if that is what you want,
b) there is no MMO with harsh death penalty, and i certainly agree that asking for them on a forum, is useless.
But i would not go as far to say you cannot express your preference. It is one thing to debate if it will result in a change (i do not), but i totally respect your right to state it. Just as i would state mine.
I am going to assume:
Holop: played some type of pen and paper role playing game (which have heavy death penalties), and played earlier MMOs which closely represented those RPGs and hence also had death penalties).
Twrule: Never played pen and paper RPG (where you can spend weeks or months on a character only to see them die and be gone forever), and never played earlier MMOs that had harsh death penalties. Or, if he did play an MMO with a death penalty, he wasn't used to it and hated it. And, he may also have started gaming with a console.
Simply different life experiences lending to opposite opinions on the matter that can't be reconciled.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I played a fair bit of pen and paper RPGs in my younger days and none of them had heavy death penalties. If your character happened to die during a campaign, you simply rolled a new one for the next session and the GM adjusted the story to the fact. The GM never had us replay last week's encounter just because one of the characters died.
Heck, if your character died in a campaign, you could just bring him/her back when the next campaign started.
Pen and Paper RPGs tend to be much closer to WoW in playstyle than a game like EQ or UO.
How about me? I played pnp RPG (AD&D) in grad school, and played UO beta and EQ. In fact, i also played a precursor of MMO called Kingdom of Drakkar.
And yet i hold a completely different opinion from Holop. I totally reject old classic MMO, and embrace f2p modern MMOs which are better games than virtual worlds.