The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
And both would be correct
No... they wouldn't. The second person in that situation is dismissing the first person's claims, saying they only feel that way because they're getting older and remembering the past more fondly than they should.
Which, if you're honest about it, is something that we all do. I don't know any sane person that doesn't emphasize good memories and minimizes bad ones. Do you?
I am honest and yes we do all do that. But that's not ALL that's happening. Again, person 2 was dismissing person 1's claims, saying it's ONLY because of rose tinted glasses. I'm saying no... there are actual changes happening in these games. It's not just our interpretation of the past. Our interpretation of the past, our preferences changing over time, our standards changing over time all play a role but ONE of the things that plays a role is the fact that games HAVE changed.
It's not sufficient to say "I'm tired of your complaining. You're just remembering the past fondly." That's not a sufficient argument.
Which brings me back to the whole point my partial bullet list of things that have contributed to both, making the 2013 MMOs what they are, AND how we feel about them. Choosing any one or two things and saying that it is THE reason is what's wrong with these frequent debates here.
... and why I said you're both right (didn't mention that you're also both wrong, but that too.) The attempt of the first poster to find a causal relationship between two or three factors is nicely counterbalanced by the "Hey!, how about perception?" reply. It may be poorly phrased so that you interpret it as a reprimand but I see it as a post that mentions some of the other factors that were excluded in the first post,
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
You cannot ask someone to forget how long something takes when the time requirement is central to the argument.
How many times do I have to say this.
The original game of tetris did not take a long time to get hard.
Do this instead
2 versions of the game.
1 takes a long time to get to the hard parts
the other takes a short time to get to the hard part.
Yes a casual player would be more likely to play the 2nd as the first.
A gamer looking for an easy game would play the first. That is not a casual gamer.
The casual gamer would play the 2nd one because it requires less time.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Nope. I’m not conveniently leaving it out. Yours is more strict. Mine says it just about time. Your says it is about time AND appeal, or time AND difficulty – yours narrows the definition further than mine, therefore yours is more strict.
No saying the only thing that matters to a casual gamer is the time, nothing else, is a more strict definition.
Nope I’m not saying the word casual friendly means something with nothing to back it up. I’m drawing it from the same place you are, my experience, my observations, my conversations in and of games and yes this site as w ell. There is just as much support for it as there is for your definition.
No my definition is based on the words. Casual Friendly. How friendly the game is to casual players. Casual players may prefer games that don't take as long, they may also prefer games that aren't as stressful.
It doesn’t have to be your definition. Your definition of casual as being something that appeals to casual is IMO silly and a circlical definition.
You changed the terms. You went from defining casual games, to defining casual friendly. Those are different terms.
Casual games has never meant that, ever, that is not literally what it means. The casual does not refer to casual players, the casual refers to time.
Casual friendly does appeal to casual players. But you were discussing casual games. Casual games are casual friendly, but they are not casual games because they appeal to casual players, they are casual games because they require less time. Them being casual games makes them casual friendly.
Casual does not refer to time. Where are you getting this? Casual refers to time in your strict definition, that's it. A casual gamer means somebody who plays games casually. How can you possibly say with such certainty that difficulty, stress, aesthetics, etc have nothing to do with how casually you can play a game? A game can be not very engaging, making it more casual in nature. You can casually play a game for 20 minutes; you can casually play that game for 90 minutes.
I haven't changed any terms. You're just slowly realizing that I'm right.
Nope casual games has always referred to time, how long something takes in the game.
We were talking about casual games.
You changed it to casual friendly.
There is a difference in those terms.
You changed the discussion.
What do you want to talk about casual games, or casual friendly? The terms are different.
Casual:
1. relaxed and unconcerned.
2. not regular or permanent, in particular.
How again are you not imposing some strict, arbitrary definition on what this term means? You're saying what makes a game casual friendly is the time it takes to get stuff done. How are you claiming this?
You're now making up some controversy about the difference between casual game and casual friendly game. I don't really see the difference but I'm sure you're going to create some complex technicality to save some face. Not only do I not see the difference, I'm pretty sure I've always said casual friendly from the start.
How am I imposing a strict defintion.
Relaxed does not mean the game is not difficult, this are games, they are being played as downtime. It may mean the person can relax while playing it. Nothign about the difficulty of the game, nothing about the difficulty of a past-time people are doing in their spare time.
Not regular or permanent - refers to less time.
No I'm not making up some controversy - they refer to time. One refers to the game, the other refers to the people.
Give up the argument that casual means easy. It never has.
This is..... incredible.
FIRST of all, casual friendliness refers to the game. It's how friendly the game is to casual players. casual game means... what exactly? Because it seems to mean the same thing. Also, again, I don't think I've ever said anything other than casual friendy/friendliness. When did I "change the terms"?
Second, how in the world can you say a game's difficulty has nothing to do with how relaxed or unconcerned you can be with it? It seems to me those definitions have a HECK of a lot more to do with difficulty than they do with time. It has to do with HOW you're playing the game, not HOW LONG.
The second definition (Not regular or permanent) doesn't refer to length of play sessions. It means it's not something that you're going to be playing regularly, and/or something you're not going to be playing forever. For instance, there could be a game that required you to play for 10 hours straight and then never play it again. That means it wasn't permanent or regular.
Casual player = somebody who plays games more relaxed, irregularly.
Casual friendly game = a game that caters to those players.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
The nostalgia argument you're making doesn't account for everything because, as I've said, we've seen increases in the playerbase. The changes we're seeing now (or at least over the past 10 years or so) can't be something that just happens naturally as you get older. It's not just that people are looking through rose tinted glasses. If that were the case, eventually the MMO genre would account for all entertainment in the world.
Again, there was a shift from niche towards mainstream in the genre. That is an actual change. It's not simply the times changing. And since there's a real change, people can have real reactions to that change that aren't simply us "getting older".
But how do you separate one from the other? There are a combination of things here that have all happened simultaneously. All of these things fall under the category of the generic "things have changed"... and they all happened as we got older:
the games have become big business
they are mainstream and millions play them
broadband internet access has become much more affordable and available
having online friends from across the world is no longer a very rare and cool new thing
we are online all the time
our tastes have changed
we have seen and played the same thing now for 20 or 30 years instead of just 1
You can't really say that only one or two of those things has caused us to feel as we do toward 2013 MMOs. They all have.
Of course our opinions are formed by countless things over large amounts of time. I don't see how that stops you from pointing out a specific change that you don't like.
What's happening a lot of the time is we say "Hey!! Games have gotten too easy! We miss when dying meant something. We want there to be consequences for our actions" then somebody on these forums comes along and says "Ahhhh you're just getting older. You're just looking at those games through rose tinted glasses."
And both would be correct
No... they wouldn't. The second person in that situation is dismissing the first person's claims, saying they only feel that way because they're getting older and remembering the past more fondly than they should.
Which, if you're honest about it, is something that we all do. I don't know any sane person that doesn't emphasize good memories and minimizes bad ones. Do you?
I am honest and yes we do all do that. But that's not ALL that's happening. Again, person 2 was dismissing person 1's claims, saying it's ONLY because of rose tinted glasses. I'm saying no... there are actual changes happening in these games. It's not just our interpretation of the past. Our interpretation of the past, our preferences changing over time, our standards changing over time all play a role but ONE of the things that plays a role is the fact that games HAVE changed.
It's not sufficient to say "I'm tired of your complaining. You're just remembering the past fondly." That's not a sufficient argument.
Which brings me back to the whole point my partial bullet list of things that have contributed to both, making the 2013 MMOs what they are, AND how we feel about them. Choosing any one or two things and saying that it is THE reason is what's wrong with these frequent debates here.
... and why I said you're both right (didn't mention that you're also both wrong, but that too.) The attempt of the first poster to find a causal relationship between two or three factors is nicely counterbalanced by the "Hey!, how about perception?" reply. It may be poorly phrased so that you interpret it as a reprimand but I see it as a post that mentions some of the other factors that were excluded in the first post,
I don't disagree with your post with the bullet points. I'm disagreeing with you saying the hypothetical guy is right when he says the only reason we don't like a certain aspect of new games is because we're getting older.
So we've just come back around to the hardcore/casual war (ongoing) again, after all?
That's so ten years ago.
You just figure out that this forum is flogging dead horses day after day?
If it bothers you so much why do you stay here Nariusseldon? Hmm? You admit you didn't like MMOs as they were years ago and now make comments like this.
This isn't a "deadhorse" to us. Perhaps one the Devs that reads these forums will consider some of our reasons why we no longer like MMOs.
Just like the Devs considered YOUR* ideas years ago and then used them to make MMOs what they are today.
* "YOUR" to include you and others that shared your dislike of MMOs back then and shared your ideas on how to change them.
If you were allowed to voice you opinions then and NOW, so too are we allowed to do the same Sir.
FIRST of all, casual friendliness refers to the game. It's how friendly the game is to casual players. casual game means... what exactly? Because it seems to mean the same thing. Also, again, I don't think I've ever said anything other than casual friendy/friendliness. When did I "change the terms"?
Second, how in the world can you say a game's difficulty has nothing to do with how relaxed or unconcerned you can be with it? It seems to me those definitions have a HECK of a lot more to do with difficulty than they do with time. It has to do with HOW you're playing the game, not HOW LONG.
The second definition (Not regular or permanent) doesn't refer to length of play sessions. It means it's not something that you're going to be playing regularly, and/or something you're not going to be playing forever. For instance, there could be a game that required you to play for 10 hours straight and then never play it again. That means it wasn't permanent or regular.
Casual player = somebody who plays games more relaxed, irregularly.
Casual friendly game = a game that caters to those players.
Problem with this assessment?
Casual friendliness refers to who the game is targeting. It is called casual friendly because it is a casual game.
Your terms here are correct:
Casual player = somebody who plays games more relaxed, irregularly.
Casual friendly game = a game that caters to those players.
Now add to this
Casual game - a game that can be played in short time frames.
None of those terms says anythign about difficulty. A casual player is still relaxed when playign a hard game.
Irregular - refers to time.
How you play the game refers to how much time you play the game. Not about the games difficulty.
edit - someone who plays the games for long peiods of time is still likely relaxed. The only difference between the relaxed person playing for a long time and the casual person is... how long they play.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
You cannot ask someone to forget how long something takes when the time requirement is central to the argument.
How many times do I have to say this.
The original game of tetris did not take a long time to get hard.
Do this instead
2 versions of the game.
1 takes a long time to get to the hard parts
the other takes a short time to get to the hard part.
Yes a casual player would be more likely to play the 2nd as the first.
A gamer looking for an easy game would play the first. That is not a casual gamer.
The casual gamer would play the 2nd one because it requires less time.
I can buy that a casual player would play a game with similar difficulty but shorter time to get to those difficult parts. I'm not saying play session length has nothing to do with casual friendliness, remember? I'm saying a lot of things go into it.
And no, time spent is not central to this argument. The argument is about whether or not time spent is the only thing that contributes to a game's casual friendliness. My hypothetical situation doesn't contradict anything. You have 2 versions of Tetris. They both go on infinitely (which I think Tetris does). One simply is harder. Which do you think a "casual gamer" would be more likely to play?
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
You cannot ask someone to forget how long something takes when the time requirement is central to the argument.
How many times do I have to say this.
The original game of tetris did not take a long time to get hard.
Do this instead
2 versions of the game.
1 takes a long time to get to the hard parts
the other takes a short time to get to the hard part.
Yes a casual player would be more likely to play the 2nd as the first.
A gamer looking for an easy game would play the first. That is not a casual gamer.
The casual gamer would play the 2nd one because it requires less time.
I can buy that a casual player would play a game with similar difficulty but shorter time to get to those difficult parts. I'm not saying play session length has nothing to do with casual friendliness, remember? I'm saying a lot of things go into it.
And no, time spent is not central to this argument. The argument is about whether or not time spent is the only thing that contributes to a game's casual friendliness. My hypothetical situation doesn't contradict anything. You have 2 versions of Tetris. They both go on infinitely (which I think Tetris does). One simply is harder. Which do you think a "casual gamer" would be more likely to play?
I've answerd this now 3 times.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions. If the original time requirement to get to the harder sessions is negligible, then there is no different in how much more it would or would not appeal to a casual gamer.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
FIRST of all, casual friendliness refers to the game. It's how friendly the game is to casual players. casual game means... what exactly? Because it seems to mean the same thing. Also, again, I don't think I've ever said anything other than casual friendy/friendliness. When did I "change the terms"?
Second, how in the world can you say a game's difficulty has nothing to do with how relaxed or unconcerned you can be with it? It seems to me those definitions have a HECK of a lot more to do with difficulty than they do with time. It has to do with HOW you're playing the game, not HOW LONG.
The second definition (Not regular or permanent) doesn't refer to length of play sessions. It means it's not something that you're going to be playing regularly, and/or something you're not going to be playing forever. For instance, there could be a game that required you to play for 10 hours straight and then never play it again. That means it wasn't permanent or regular.
Casual player = somebody who plays games more relaxed, irregularly.
Casual friendly game = a game that caters to those players.
Problem with this assessment?
Casual friendliness refers to who the game is targeting. It is called casual friendly because it is a casual game.
Your terms here are correct:
Casual player = somebody who plays games more relaxed, irregularly.
Casual friendly game = a game that caters to those players.
Now add to this
Casual game - a game that can be played in short time frames.
None of those terms says anythign about difficulty. A casual player is still relaxed when playign a hard game.
Irregular - refers to time.
Where are you getting that definition for casual game? You're just saying I'm right because I'm right. My arguments are based on reason and actual definitions. You're just literally grabbing yours out of thin air. Casual games are games that appeal to casual gamers. It's the same as a game that is casual friendly.
You're assuming that a casual player is relaxed when playing a hard game. Difficulty can add to stress. Stress is in conflict with relaxation. If you don't agree that difficulty can add to stress, fine. Pick whatever you think DOES add to stress, because the point is it's not JUST time. Speed of gameplay, harsh consequences, etc. Those things are stress inducers, or can be. They are anti-relaxation.
You can have a short, stressful play session. You can have a long, relaxing play session. YES?
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
You cannot ask someone to forget how long something takes when the time requirement is central to the argument.
How many times do I have to say this.
The original game of tetris did not take a long time to get hard.
Do this instead
2 versions of the game.
1 takes a long time to get to the hard parts
the other takes a short time to get to the hard part.
Yes a casual player would be more likely to play the 2nd as the first.
A gamer looking for an easy game would play the first. That is not a casual gamer.
The casual gamer would play the 2nd one because it requires less time.
I can buy that a casual player would play a game with similar difficulty but shorter time to get to those difficult parts. I'm not saying play session length has nothing to do with casual friendliness, remember? I'm saying a lot of things go into it.
And no, time spent is not central to this argument. The argument is about whether or not time spent is the only thing that contributes to a game's casual friendliness. My hypothetical situation doesn't contradict anything. You have 2 versions of Tetris. They both go on infinitely (which I think Tetris does). One simply is harder. Which do you think a "casual gamer" would be more likely to play?
I've answerd this now 3 times.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions. If the original time requirement to get to the harder sessions is negligible, then there is no different in how much more it would or would not appeal to a casual gamer.
No... you've "non-answered" it 3 times. The two version of the game have the same play times.
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
You cannot ask someone to forget how long something takes when the time requirement is central to the argument.
How many times do I have to say this.
The original game of tetris did not take a long time to get hard.
Do this instead
2 versions of the game.
1 takes a long time to get to the hard parts
the other takes a short time to get to the hard part.
Yes a casual player would be more likely to play the 2nd as the first.
A gamer looking for an easy game would play the first. That is not a casual gamer.
The casual gamer would play the 2nd one because it requires less time.
I can buy that a casual player would play a game with similar difficulty but shorter time to get to those difficult parts. I'm not saying play session length has nothing to do with casual friendliness, remember? I'm saying a lot of things go into it.
And no, time spent is not central to this argument. The argument is about whether or not time spent is the only thing that contributes to a game's casual friendliness. My hypothetical situation doesn't contradict anything. You have 2 versions of Tetris. They both go on infinitely (which I think Tetris does). One simply is harder. Which do you think a "casual gamer" would be more likely to play?
I've answerd this now 3 times.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions. If the original time requirement to get to the harder sessions is negligible, then there is no different in how much more it would or would not appeal to a casual gamer.
No... you've "non-answered" it 3 times. The two version of the game have the same play times.
How have I non-answered it. It's right there.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions.
You can't come back and and say the play times are the same because that is central to the argument.
Your sayign it isn't just about time. I'm saying it is just about time.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I think to lay all the blame of MMOs changing onto the developers, or suits depending on which group you hate more, is an easy out for most people.
I would argue that the gamers themselves are the biggest agent of change in the MMO world. If you look at most of the major changes in MMOs they came about because of player choices. UO in it's original design had a great system for wildlife ecology .... that whole system was obliterated in early beta because the players slaughtered everything in sight, and I believe that by the end of that early beta test a couple of high level alpha predators would have been extinct before the players would have ever seen them in game. All the rules against botting and gold/item duping are in place because the players broke the economy. Now developers are also to blame bad code, poor security, not enough qa ... this led to a few of problems/exploits so there is alot of blame to go around. Modern MMO players are no different that their predecessors in term of using exploits to gain advantage. Some games also changed because the gamers started spending more money in other games, and business being business the game changed to attract that money.
Another reason that the games have changed is well the natural progression of the industry. When I started working ... a few years ago I was about the average age in the industry, and now I am more of a dinosaur. Games change because the people working on them have changed.
TL;DR I think if you look back at the MMO history at places where things changed you will more than likely see something gamers did precipitating the change. There is lots of blame to go around, but devs are not the only reason for the change.
How long it takes to get to the hard parts changes depending on how many times you have to try. You may lose well before you get to those hard parts.
Forget how long the game takes. I don't even think there is a set time, is there? It can go on for quite a while I thought. So by starting the game later you're not really changing how long the game is.
But if it matters so much I'll change it. Just pretend you have 2 games of tetris, one is the original version's difficulty and the other is considerably faster (harder). Let's just say 10x as fast (hard). Do you think a casual gamer would be more likely to play the original over the harder one?
You cannot ask someone to forget how long something takes when the time requirement is central to the argument.
How many times do I have to say this.
The original game of tetris did not take a long time to get hard.
Do this instead
2 versions of the game.
1 takes a long time to get to the hard parts
the other takes a short time to get to the hard part.
Yes a casual player would be more likely to play the 2nd as the first.
A gamer looking for an easy game would play the first. That is not a casual gamer.
The casual gamer would play the 2nd one because it requires less time.
I can buy that a casual player would play a game with similar difficulty but shorter time to get to those difficult parts. I'm not saying play session length has nothing to do with casual friendliness, remember? I'm saying a lot of things go into it.
And no, time spent is not central to this argument. The argument is about whether or not time spent is the only thing that contributes to a game's casual friendliness. My hypothetical situation doesn't contradict anything. You have 2 versions of Tetris. They both go on infinitely (which I think Tetris does). One simply is harder. Which do you think a "casual gamer" would be more likely to play?
I've answerd this now 3 times.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions. If the original time requirement to get to the harder sessions is negligible, then there is no different in how much more it would or would not appeal to a casual gamer.
No... you've "non-answered" it 3 times. The two version of the game have the same play times.
How have I non-answered it. It's right there.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions.
You can't come back and and say the play times are the same because that is central to the argument.
Your sayign it isn't just about time. I'm saying it is just about time.
That's not answering the question. Are you being willfully ignorant here? I gave you two DIFFERENT games, and said picture a casual gamer. Which one would he play? And you're saying "the game which has shorter sessions." But they have identical sessions.
Your argument basically acts like a "casual gamer" doesn't exist as a person who WOULD actually pick up one or the other. That's why you're wrong. Your definition prohibits you from answering the question because your definition is wrong. This is as close to proof as you're going to find in a discussion like this. In reality you could observe a large sample of self-proclaimed "casual" players and see which one of these IDENTICAL PLAYTIME games they would pick. Are you saying they would play them both equally?
Where are you getting that definition for casual game? You're just saying I'm right because I'm right. My arguments are based on reason and actual definitions. You're just literally grabbing yours out of thin air. Casual games are games that appeal to casual gamers. It's the same as a game that is casual friendly.
You're assuming that a casual player is relaxed when playing a hard game. Difficulty can add to stress. Stress is in conflict with relaxation. If you don't agree that difficulty can add to stress, fine. Pick whatever you think DOES add to stress, because the point is it's not JUST time. Speed of gameplay, harsh consequences, etc. Those things are stress inducers, or can be. They are anti-relaxation.
You can have a short, stressful play session. You can have a long, relaxing play session. YES?
I've allready answered where I'm getting my definition. The same places you are, my experience, games, talking with people, these forums.
The definition you stated of relaxed and irregular supports my defintion that it is about time.
You're just saying I'm right because I'm right. My arguments are based on reason and actual definitions. You're just literally grabbing yours out of thin air. Yes a casual game does appeal to casual gamers.
But they are not Casual games BECAUSE they appeal to casual gamers. They are casual games BECAUSE they can be played in short time frames.
They appeal to Casual gamers BECAUSE they can be played in short time frames.
Many thinks can add to stress, people play games typically to relax. Gamers of all stripes, casual and hardcore are playing games to relax.
Your assuming that a casual player is not relaxed when playing a hard game.
The lights on the screen can cause stress, does that mean bright games are not casual? Sitting in a chair does cause stress, breathing does cause stress.
Just because somethign can cause stress does not mean the level induced increases the difficulty of the situation or prevents someone from relaxing.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
That's not answering the question. Are you being willfully ignorant here? I gave you two DIFFERENT games, and said picture a casual gamer. Which one would he play? And you're saying "the game which has shorter sessions." But they have identical sessions.
Your argument basically acts like a "casual gamer" doesn't exist as a person who WOULD actually pick up one or the other. That's why you're wrong. Your definition prohibits you from answering the question because your definition is wrong. This is as close to proof as you're going to find in a discussion like this. In reality you could observe a large sample of self-proclaimed "casual" players and see which one of these IDENTICAL PLAYTIME games they would pick. Are you saying they would play them both equally?
You are being rediculous now. I have told you repeatedly that the casual gamer will play the game that has shorter play sessions. You then turn around and say they have identical play sessions.
I'll say it again, the casual gamer will play the one with the shorter play sessions.
If both sessions take the same length of time then it's an irrelevant comparison, because the time requirement is the point of the discussion and is our argument.
The casual gamer would pick the one with the shorter session.
If play times are identical, it is irrelevant which one they would pick. Difficulty is irrelevant. The casual gamer is concerned about time, not difficulty.
edit - I think your being willfully ignorant. Ignoring that I have repeatedly said over and over that time is the issue for a casual gamer, you then ask me to compare 2 games with the same time requirement asking which would they pick. Knowing that time is the requirement one answer is as good as another because the time requirement is the same. you created an impossible scenario that ignores the time requirement.
Knowing that time is the requirement to facilitate a choice, you asking me to ignore the time. That is ludicrous. It would make no difference to the casual gamer, it would make a difference to a gamer wanting easy gameplay or hard gameplay. But for the casual requirement there is no difference.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
New MMOs do mostly suck. For many reasons. In 15 years the only thing thats gotten better was the graphics engines. Its definately not what anyone would have predicted 15, 10, or even 5 years ago. No one can really say they didn't expect more...from someone...at least once...in all this time...
AAA tittles role through, make their money from box sales and subs because people "hope" it will be a good game...then after those people have been exhausted/wasted their money the game goes f2p/p2w (same thing 99% of the time) to get those peoples money, then closes it doors. Its a rinse repeat effect because people keep actually giving them money. As long as it works, they will keep doing it. It only stops when people stop falling for it.
The Genre really does pretty much suck now...walk away. There is nothing wrong with walking away at a certain point. Paying for and playing bad games just to play "something" is terrible. It perpetuates the problems. Give them $0. Let the market stew for abit...check things out, maybe it will change, maybe not. Try before buy. Never give any of these AAA titles $40-$60 just to try the game to see if you like it or not...f* that. If they didn't make a $(#@ product, they would be willing to let you try it for a few days to see how you like it, then buy it if you like or not. There is nothing wrong with paying for or sub fees for a game that "doesn't suck".
IMO, MMORPG devs/distributers/companies/etc have used up all their credit and trust along time ago. If the rule of thumb was never give them a dime without seeing what your paying for first, then the quality would improve. So never give them $ until your sure you like the product....its like buying a car without having ever turned the key to see if it even starts. Especially the exceptionally @hole companies like SONY and Turbine. F* them twice for turning moderately decent games into piles of crap over the course of time with poor life choices and idiots running the show.
I played EQ and DAoC for many years. Bought DAoC 3 days after it was released even.
I loved those games but I am glad the genre evolved some. I do not miss spawn camping hours and hours, waiting in line for rare mobs, exp. grinding for hours on end. Half the time spent socializing was due to there being nothing else better to do while you waited 8 hours for your turn at the rare.
Those type of games were great for the time, but it isnt that time now. Me and all my DAoC buddies couldnt put in the sheer amount of time and effort to play something like that today. Hell I need a more casual MMO to play just due to real life adult responsibilities. Gone are the days of having to spend 40 hours a week to barely keep up in an MMO.
I have many great memories from those games as I am sure many do. There are games like that still running if you want to play them. Simply put most people have neither the time nor desire to commit that much time & effort into a video game. Casual MMOs draw a bigger crowd, just the way it is.
I do miss the community of DAoC, the realm pride, defending the relics, knowing your enemies from other realms, being in a guild that actually felt like a family rather than the guys you raid with every M / W / F. For me that was the best time I have ever had in a game period. It was as much a time in my life as it was the game. Everyone I knew that played hardcore has gown up and have families, full time jobs, ect.
Only a small niche could or would actually put the time required by a game like EQ1 or DAoC on release. Why make a game for 100k when you could make one Millions play and enjoy? Not for love I can tell you that. At the end of the day game making is a business.
Is running all over clicking NPC's with yellow markers better?I would say doing quests,90% of the time is just running to and from,which is the equivalent of doing nothing.
Only whilst running you are not even socializing.What i see now ,players are so bored they hang out in chat and talk Chuck Norris jokes,or start arguing with other players about how great Wow is and crap the game is they are sitting in.Then 10 chat tells tell that person to go back to Wow then a big argument erupts.
I remember one of the early quests i had in Wow,i had to run a Stein to another Npc,then i got XP for doing it.I can tel;l you i sure felt like i deserved that XP and thanks to that fed ex quest my Warrior was that much more experienced.Geesh from there hence forward, my Warrior truly did feel stronger,must have been the quad muscle building from that run and/or that Stein must have weighed a ton.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I don't disagree with your post with the bullet points. I'm disagreeing with you saying the hypothetical guy is right when he says the only reason we don't like a certain aspect of new games is because we're getting older.
no, it's because as time goes things change, the status quo changes and you things that you liked that were status quo are no longer very, um "quo".
look at rap.
When I was younger rap was a niche music, poetry of the streets, that sort of thing,. Time goes on and suddenly many people are listening to it. More time goes on and you find it in burger king commercials. More time goes on and we start seeing less and less of it around, less use of it in "popular media".
Same with mmo's. Time goes on, things change, the genre gets popular, wow becomes big with non-gamers, eventually things will change and more niche games will show up because the popularity of WoW and other attempts at "mainstreaming it" will fall and you will get a new type of status quo for games.
It's just an ebb and flow and as I've said it's been happening long before we were born.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Where are you getting that definition for casual game? You're just saying I'm right because I'm right. My arguments are based on reason and actual definitions. You're just literally grabbing yours out of thin air. Casual games are games that appeal to casual gamers. It's the same as a game that is casual friendly.
You're assuming that a casual player is relaxed when playing a hard game. Difficulty can add to stress. Stress is in conflict with relaxation. If you don't agree that difficulty can add to stress, fine. Pick whatever you think DOES add to stress, because the point is it's not JUST time. Speed of gameplay, harsh consequences, etc. Those things are stress inducers, or can be. They are anti-relaxation.
You can have a short, stressful play session. You can have a long, relaxing play session. YES?
I've allready answered where I'm getting my definition. The same places you are, my experience, games, talking with people, these forums.
No. I've said that my definition comes from the ACTUAL definition of the word.
The definition you stated of relaxed and irregular supports my defintion that it is about time.
You're just saying I'm right because I'm right. My arguments are based on reason and actual definitions. You're just literally grabbing yours out of thin air.
Relaxed has little to do with time. Again, you can have a short, stressful play session. You can have a long, relaxing play session. CORRECT?
Irregular has nothing to do with time of play sessions, it has to do with the irregularity of play sessions.... it's ridiculous that I actually had to say that sentence to you. You can have a really, really, really long play session and then never play again. That's irregular, but by your definition would not be casual friendly. You can also have short play sessions that happen every day at the exact same time. That's regular, but by your definition WOULD be casual friendly.
It's NOT just about length of play session. I can't believe you're still trying to argue this. I would argue that Relaxation is MORE about difficulty than session time.. and you're not only disagree with that, you're saying that relaxation has ZERO to do with difficulty.
Yes a casual game does appeal to casual gamers.
But they are not Casual games BECAUSE they appeal to casual gamers. They are casual games BECAUSE they can be played in short time frames.
They appeal to Casual gamers BECAUSE they can be played in short time frames.
This is what I mean when you use your own definition as an argument in a discussion ABOUT the definition. What part of the definition of casual are you getting this from? The "relaxing" part? The "irreular" part? You're saying relaxation ONLY (!!!!!) has to do with length of play session. Do you see how ridiculous it is? The ability to play in chunks that fit your schedule (sometimes short) does indeed play a part in what makes a game more or less casual friendly. But I have to say it is absolutely ridiculous and pompous for you to say that this is the only factor. I don't understand how you can cling on to this idea that difficulty has nothing to do with how relaxing, or casual, a game can be.
Many thinks can add to stress, people play games typically to relax. Gamers of all stripes, casual and hardcore are playing games to relax.
If many things can add to stress, and stress is in direct conflict with relaxation, and relaxation is related to how casual something is, how can you say only ONE thing can determine how casual something is?
Your assuming that a casual player is not relaxed when playing a hard game.
The lights on the screen can cause stress, does that mean bright games are not casual? Sitting in a chair does cause stress, breathing does cause stress.
Just because somethign can cause stress does not mean the level induced increases the difficulty of the situation or prevents someone from relaxing.
No actually I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that a number of things go into what makes a game relaxing. You're assuming that only one thing does.
You say the lights on the screen can cause stress, I agree. I think a "casual friendly" game would be one that is as aesthetically pleasing as possible.
That's not answering the question. Are you being willfully ignorant here? I gave you two DIFFERENT games, and said picture a casual gamer. Which one would he play? And you're saying "the game which has shorter sessions." But they have identical sessions.
Your argument basically acts like a "casual gamer" doesn't exist as a person who WOULD actually pick up one or the other. That's why you're wrong. Your definition prohibits you from answering the question because your definition is wrong. This is as close to proof as you're going to find in a discussion like this. In reality you could observe a large sample of self-proclaimed "casual" players and see which one of these IDENTICAL PLAYTIME games they would pick. Are you saying they would play them both equally?
You are being rediculous now. I have told you repeatedly that the casual gamer will play the game that has shorter play sessions. You then turn around and say they have identical play sessions.
I'll say it again, the casual gamer will play the one with the shorter play sessions.
If both sessions take the same length of time then it's an irrelevant comparison, because the time requirement is the point of the discussion and is our argument.
The casual gamer would pick the one with the shorter session.
If play times are identical, it is irrelevant which one they would pick. Difficulty is irrelevant. The casual gamer is concerned about time, not difficulty.
edit - I think your being willfully ignorant. Ignoring that I have repeatedly said over and over that time is the issue for a casual gamer, you then ask me to compare 2 games with the same time requirement asking which would they pick. Knowing that time is the requirement one answer is as good as another because the time requirement is the same. you created an impossible scenario that ignores the time requirement.
Knowing that time is the requirement to facilitate a choice, you asking me to ignore the time. That is ludicrous. It would make no difference to the casual gamer, it would make a difference to a gamer wanting easy gameplay or hard gameplay. But for the casual requirement there is no difference.
What do you mean it's an irrelevant comparison? Casual gamers exist. If you gathered them all up and made them pick, they would prefer one over the other. You're unable to answer the question in a concrete way because your definition is made up... it doesn't exist. You're saying a casual gamer is somebody who cares about the length of the play session and nothing else (a truly ridiculous and laughable assertion), so when I give you two different games with similar play sessions you literally cannot answer it.
Again, casual gamers exist. I'm not asking some hypothetical, based on your definition, question. I'm saying picture a pool of people who would call themselves casual gamers. Give them the option to play one game or the other. Which would they gravitate towards? Guess what... it's the easier one.
Standards are set so that people can't just go "Oh hey, I want a cat to be a squirrel now, it's going to happen because I say so". That's the point, and MMOs recently have been failing left and right because they've strayed too far from the original intent of what an MMO is, and was.
Do you think that rock music now is the same as rock music 10 years ago? No, it is very different. Is it still called rock? Yes. Does anyone complain about it. Yes, old people. Why do they do that? Sentiment, nothing more, get over it. Rock is still rock, genres can change.
Second thing. No one ever set any standard for any genre in gaming. Who would you call standard setter? First company who created something different and named it? Don't be ridiculous. Even if you assumed that, first company didn't set anything in stone anyway.
Third, something that seems like a downgrade for you, might be progress for someone else. In this case for majority, as numbers all around the web say. It is like saying that it is bad cars got faster, because now they kill more people. How many people would actually want the old cars back... few old people with sentiment.
Comments
No its just a war that has been going on for ten years and probably will never end.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Some arguments are timeless.... besides, there is more to the discontent than just "hardcore" vs. "Casual". Much more.
Which brings me back to the whole point my partial bullet list of things that have contributed to both, making the 2013 MMOs what they are, AND how we feel about them. Choosing any one or two things and saying that it is THE reason is what's wrong with these frequent debates here.
... and why I said you're both right (didn't mention that you're also both wrong, but that too.) The attempt of the first poster to find a causal relationship between two or three factors is nicely counterbalanced by the "Hey!, how about perception?" reply. It may be poorly phrased so that you interpret it as a reprimand but I see it as a post that mentions some of the other factors that were excluded in the first post,
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You cannot ask someone to forget how long something takes when the time requirement is central to the argument.
How many times do I have to say this.
The original game of tetris did not take a long time to get hard.
Do this instead
2 versions of the game.
1 takes a long time to get to the hard parts
the other takes a short time to get to the hard part.
Yes a casual player would be more likely to play the 2nd as the first.
A gamer looking for an easy game would play the first. That is not a casual gamer.
The casual gamer would play the 2nd one because it requires less time.
This is..... incredible.
FIRST of all, casual friendliness refers to the game. It's how friendly the game is to casual players. casual game means... what exactly? Because it seems to mean the same thing. Also, again, I don't think I've ever said anything other than casual friendy/friendliness. When did I "change the terms"?
Second, how in the world can you say a game's difficulty has nothing to do with how relaxed or unconcerned you can be with it? It seems to me those definitions have a HECK of a lot more to do with difficulty than they do with time. It has to do with HOW you're playing the game, not HOW LONG.
The second definition (Not regular or permanent) doesn't refer to length of play sessions. It means it's not something that you're going to be playing regularly, and/or something you're not going to be playing forever. For instance, there could be a game that required you to play for 10 hours straight and then never play it again. That means it wasn't permanent or regular.
Casual player = somebody who plays games more relaxed, irregularly.
Casual friendly game = a game that caters to those players.
Problem with this assessment?
Are you sure? Same arguments; evidence suggests it's the same guys.
I don't disagree with your post with the bullet points. I'm disagreeing with you saying the hypothetical guy is right when he says the only reason we don't like a certain aspect of new games is because we're getting older.
Sure there is !
Except all the "discontent" is on the hardcore side.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
If it bothers you so much why do you stay here Nariusseldon? Hmm? You admit you didn't like MMOs as they were years ago and now make comments like this.
This isn't a "deadhorse" to us. Perhaps one the Devs that reads these forums will consider some of our reasons why we no longer like MMOs.
Just like the Devs considered YOUR* ideas years ago and then used them to make MMOs what they are today.
* "YOUR" to include you and others that shared your dislike of MMOs back then and shared your ideas on how to change them.
If you were allowed to voice you opinions then and NOW, so too are we allowed to do the same Sir.
Casual friendliness refers to who the game is targeting. It is called casual friendly because it is a casual game.
Your terms here are correct:
Casual player = somebody who plays games more relaxed, irregularly.
Casual friendly game = a game that caters to those players.
Now add to this
Casual game - a game that can be played in short time frames.
None of those terms says anythign about difficulty. A casual player is still relaxed when playign a hard game.
Irregular - refers to time.
How you play the game refers to how much time you play the game. Not about the games difficulty.
edit - someone who plays the games for long peiods of time is still likely relaxed. The only difference between the relaxed person playing for a long time and the casual person is... how long they play.
I can buy that a casual player would play a game with similar difficulty but shorter time to get to those difficult parts. I'm not saying play session length has nothing to do with casual friendliness, remember? I'm saying a lot of things go into it.
And no, time spent is not central to this argument. The argument is about whether or not time spent is the only thing that contributes to a game's casual friendliness. My hypothetical situation doesn't contradict anything. You have 2 versions of Tetris. They both go on infinitely (which I think Tetris does). One simply is harder. Which do you think a "casual gamer" would be more likely to play?
I've answerd this now 3 times.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions. If the original time requirement to get to the harder sessions is negligible, then there is no different in how much more it would or would not appeal to a casual gamer.
Where are you getting that definition for casual game? You're just saying I'm right because I'm right. My arguments are based on reason and actual definitions. You're just literally grabbing yours out of thin air. Casual games are games that appeal to casual gamers. It's the same as a game that is casual friendly.
You're assuming that a casual player is relaxed when playing a hard game. Difficulty can add to stress. Stress is in conflict with relaxation. If you don't agree that difficulty can add to stress, fine. Pick whatever you think DOES add to stress, because the point is it's not JUST time. Speed of gameplay, harsh consequences, etc. Those things are stress inducers, or can be. They are anti-relaxation.
You can have a short, stressful play session. You can have a long, relaxing play session. YES?
No... you've "non-answered" it 3 times. The two version of the game have the same play times.
How have I non-answered it. It's right there.
A casual player would play the game that requires shorter sessions.
You can't come back and and say the play times are the same because that is central to the argument.
Your sayign it isn't just about time. I'm saying it is just about time.
I think to lay all the blame of MMOs changing onto the developers, or suits depending on which group you hate more, is an easy out for most people.
I would argue that the gamers themselves are the biggest agent of change in the MMO world. If you look at most of the major changes in MMOs they came about because of player choices. UO in it's original design had a great system for wildlife ecology .... that whole system was obliterated in early beta because the players slaughtered everything in sight, and I believe that by the end of that early beta test a couple of high level alpha predators would have been extinct before the players would have ever seen them in game. All the rules against botting and gold/item duping are in place because the players broke the economy. Now developers are also to blame bad code, poor security, not enough qa ... this led to a few of problems/exploits so there is alot of blame to go around. Modern MMO players are no different that their predecessors in term of using exploits to gain advantage. Some games also changed because the gamers started spending more money in other games, and business being business the game changed to attract that money.
Another reason that the games have changed is well the natural progression of the industry. When I started working ... a few years ago I was about the average age in the industry, and now I am more of a dinosaur. Games change because the people working on them have changed.
TL;DR I think if you look back at the MMO history at places where things changed you will more than likely see something gamers did precipitating the change. There is lots of blame to go around, but devs are not the only reason for the change.
That's not answering the question. Are you being willfully ignorant here? I gave you two DIFFERENT games, and said picture a casual gamer. Which one would he play? And you're saying "the game which has shorter sessions." But they have identical sessions.
Your argument basically acts like a "casual gamer" doesn't exist as a person who WOULD actually pick up one or the other. That's why you're wrong. Your definition prohibits you from answering the question because your definition is wrong. This is as close to proof as you're going to find in a discussion like this. In reality you could observe a large sample of self-proclaimed "casual" players and see which one of these IDENTICAL PLAYTIME games they would pick. Are you saying they would play them both equally?
I've allready answered where I'm getting my definition. The same places you are, my experience, games, talking with people, these forums.
The definition you stated of relaxed and irregular supports my defintion that it is about time.
You're just saying I'm right because I'm right. My arguments are based on reason and actual definitions. You're just literally grabbing yours out of thin air. Yes a casual game does appeal to casual gamers.
But they are not Casual games BECAUSE they appeal to casual gamers. They are casual games BECAUSE they can be played in short time frames.
They appeal to Casual gamers BECAUSE they can be played in short time frames.
Many thinks can add to stress, people play games typically to relax. Gamers of all stripes, casual and hardcore are playing games to relax.
Your assuming that a casual player is not relaxed when playing a hard game.
The lights on the screen can cause stress, does that mean bright games are not casual? Sitting in a chair does cause stress, breathing does cause stress.
Just because somethign can cause stress does not mean the level induced increases the difficulty of the situation or prevents someone from relaxing.
You are being rediculous now. I have told you repeatedly that the casual gamer will play the game that has shorter play sessions. You then turn around and say they have identical play sessions.
I'll say it again, the casual gamer will play the one with the shorter play sessions.
If both sessions take the same length of time then it's an irrelevant comparison, because the time requirement is the point of the discussion and is our argument.
The casual gamer would pick the one with the shorter session.
If play times are identical, it is irrelevant which one they would pick. Difficulty is irrelevant. The casual gamer is concerned about time, not difficulty.
edit - I think your being willfully ignorant. Ignoring that I have repeatedly said over and over that time is the issue for a casual gamer, you then ask me to compare 2 games with the same time requirement asking which would they pick. Knowing that time is the requirement one answer is as good as another because the time requirement is the same. you created an impossible scenario that ignores the time requirement.
Knowing that time is the requirement to facilitate a choice, you asking me to ignore the time. That is ludicrous. It would make no difference to the casual gamer, it would make a difference to a gamer wanting easy gameplay or hard gameplay. But for the casual requirement there is no difference.
New MMOs do mostly suck. For many reasons. In 15 years the only thing thats gotten better was the graphics engines. Its definately not what anyone would have predicted 15, 10, or even 5 years ago. No one can really say they didn't expect more...from someone...at least once...in all this time...
AAA tittles role through, make their money from box sales and subs because people "hope" it will be a good game...then after those people have been exhausted/wasted their money the game goes f2p/p2w (same thing 99% of the time) to get those peoples money, then closes it doors. Its a rinse repeat effect because people keep actually giving them money. As long as it works, they will keep doing it. It only stops when people stop falling for it.
The Genre really does pretty much suck now...walk away. There is nothing wrong with walking away at a certain point. Paying for and playing bad games just to play "something" is terrible. It perpetuates the problems. Give them $0. Let the market stew for abit...check things out, maybe it will change, maybe not. Try before buy. Never give any of these AAA titles $40-$60 just to try the game to see if you like it or not...f* that. If they didn't make a $(#@ product, they would be willing to let you try it for a few days to see how you like it, then buy it if you like or not. There is nothing wrong with paying for or sub fees for a game that "doesn't suck".
IMO, MMORPG devs/distributers/companies/etc have used up all their credit and trust along time ago. If the rule of thumb was never give them a dime without seeing what your paying for first, then the quality would improve. So never give them $ until your sure you like the product....its like buying a car without having ever turned the key to see if it even starts. Especially the exceptionally @hole companies like SONY and Turbine. F* them twice for turning moderately decent games into piles of crap over the course of time with poor life choices and idiots running the show.
~I am Many~
Is running all over clicking NPC's with yellow markers better?I would say doing quests,90% of the time is just running to and from,which is the equivalent of doing nothing.
Only whilst running you are not even socializing.What i see now ,players are so bored they hang out in chat and talk Chuck Norris jokes,or start arguing with other players about how great Wow is and crap the game is they are sitting in.Then 10 chat tells tell that person to go back to Wow then a big argument erupts.
I remember one of the early quests i had in Wow,i had to run a Stein to another Npc,then i got XP for doing it.I can tel;l you i sure felt like i deserved that XP and thanks to that fed ex quest my Warrior was that much more experienced.Geesh from there hence forward, my Warrior truly did feel stronger,must have been the quad muscle building from that run and/or that Stein must have weighed a ton.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
no, it's because as time goes things change, the status quo changes and you things that you liked that were status quo are no longer very, um "quo".
look at rap.
When I was younger rap was a niche music, poetry of the streets, that sort of thing,. Time goes on and suddenly many people are listening to it. More time goes on and you find it in burger king commercials. More time goes on and we start seeing less and less of it around, less use of it in "popular media".
Same with mmo's. Time goes on, things change, the genre gets popular, wow becomes big with non-gamers, eventually things will change and more niche games will show up because the popularity of WoW and other attempts at "mainstreaming it" will fall and you will get a new type of status quo for games.
It's just an ebb and flow and as I've said it's been happening long before we were born.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
No. I've said that my definition comes from the ACTUAL definition of the word.
Relaxed has little to do with time. Again, you can have a short, stressful play session. You can have a long, relaxing play session. CORRECT?
Irregular has nothing to do with time of play sessions, it has to do with the irregularity of play sessions.... it's ridiculous that I actually had to say that sentence to you. You can have a really, really, really long play session and then never play again. That's irregular, but by your definition would not be casual friendly. You can also have short play sessions that happen every day at the exact same time. That's regular, but by your definition WOULD be casual friendly.
It's NOT just about length of play session. I can't believe you're still trying to argue this. I would argue that Relaxation is MORE about difficulty than session time.. and you're not only disagree with that, you're saying that relaxation has ZERO to do with difficulty.
This is what I mean when you use your own definition as an argument in a discussion ABOUT the definition. What part of the definition of casual are you getting this from? The "relaxing" part? The "irreular" part? You're saying relaxation ONLY (!!!!!) has to do with length of play session. Do you see how ridiculous it is? The ability to play in chunks that fit your schedule (sometimes short) does indeed play a part in what makes a game more or less casual friendly. But I have to say it is absolutely ridiculous and pompous for you to say that this is the only factor. I don't understand how you can cling on to this idea that difficulty has nothing to do with how relaxing, or casual, a game can be.
If many things can add to stress, and stress is in direct conflict with relaxation, and relaxation is related to how casual something is, how can you say only ONE thing can determine how casual something is?
No actually I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that a number of things go into what makes a game relaxing. You're assuming that only one thing does.
You say the lights on the screen can cause stress, I agree. I think a "casual friendly" game would be one that is as aesthetically pleasing as possible.
What do you mean it's an irrelevant comparison? Casual gamers exist. If you gathered them all up and made them pick, they would prefer one over the other. You're unable to answer the question in a concrete way because your definition is made up... it doesn't exist. You're saying a casual gamer is somebody who cares about the length of the play session and nothing else (a truly ridiculous and laughable assertion), so when I give you two different games with similar play sessions you literally cannot answer it.
Again, casual gamers exist. I'm not asking some hypothetical, based on your definition, question. I'm saying picture a pool of people who would call themselves casual gamers. Give them the option to play one game or the other. Which would they gravitate towards? Guess what... it's the easier one.
Do you think that rock music now is the same as rock music 10 years ago? No, it is very different. Is it still called rock? Yes. Does anyone complain about it. Yes, old people. Why do they do that? Sentiment, nothing more, get over it. Rock is still rock, genres can change.
Second thing. No one ever set any standard for any genre in gaming. Who would you call standard setter? First company who created something different and named it? Don't be ridiculous. Even if you assumed that, first company didn't set anything in stone anyway.
Third, something that seems like a downgrade for you, might be progress for someone else. In this case for majority, as numbers all around the web say. It is like saying that it is bad cars got faster, because now they kill more people. How many people would actually want the old cars back... few old people with sentiment.