Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think it's very realistic. In terms of mmo games I haven't noticed anything harder about the reported hard games ad opposed to the casual games.
Practicing implies cognition and retention which is more than just time spent.
Just spending time will never ever you better. Ever. In anything.
Getting better involves more than just time. There have been many many studies showing this.
Cognition, schema, retention are all necessary to get better. Not simply time.
Those things REQUIRE time spent in the game... lol. What are we talking about exactly? Because what I'm saying is that if you have two groups of players, the group that spends more time playing will tend to be more skilled.
Also, we're not just talking about MMOs. Also, the hardcore MMOs are harder. One of the most hardcore games, Darkfall Online, was also probably THE hardest. The new darkfall is now probably the hardest (or at least one of the hardest) and is also one of the most hardcore. Even pvp in oldschool UO was very difficult, fast paced, and required skills similar to twitch skills in FPS.
Two people spend the same amount of time throwing baskets. One doesn't pay any attention towhat he is doing. Doesn't think about it aim or do anything other than their the balll. The other visualizes it works on different throwing patterns consciously tries to do what his coaches tell him.
Time and skill being equal between those two the seeing will improve the first will not.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
My argument is that old systems weren't social, I have yet encouraged more social game play. I played games of the EQ time period and I find them to not be as social as you seem to its a differing point of view than yours. I have yet to see you make a point about shy mechanic that encouraged positive and I stress positive social interaction as in something I would enjoy and not forced by mechanics
Yea they do require time spent but time is not the determining factor. One person spending conscious time to improve an hour every few days will improve more than someone who spends half a day every day just going for the ride.
The time was not the determining factor.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Two people spend the same amount of time throwing baskets. One doesn't pay any attention towhat he is doing. Doesn't think about it aim or do anything other than their the balll. The other visualizes it works on different throwing patterns consciously tries to do what his coaches tell him.
Time and skill being equal between those two the seeing will improve the first will not.
Yes but you have no reason to think hardcore players are not paying attention to what they're doing. I'm not saying that the person who plays more will ALWAYS be better than somebody who plays less. I said that group of people will tend to be better, which is true.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yea they do require time spent but time is not the determining factor. One person spending conscious time to improve an hour every few days will improve more than someone who spends half a day every day just going for the ride.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Challenge has nothing to do with casual play. Its more that developers numbers make them afraid to rock the boat on challenge. You could have a game that took 5 hours to max level but totally kicked your ass with skill required.
Maybe not by definition, but casual games will tend to be easier because casual players will tend to be less skilled than hardcore players.
From what I've seen, people are equally bad in hardcore games as in the casual friendly ones. They just like to beat their chests more for some reason.
My anecdotal evidence contradicts your anecdotal evidence, and logic supports me. Hardcore gamers play more, they will tend to be better.
Amount of practice is not everything. It is also the quality of practice that counts. For example, you can have 1 hour of challenging gameplay versus 6 hours of doing practically nothing.
Hardcore games tend to waste your time more. Your move.
No, they don't. How do hardcore games waste your time more? And by how much? Do you think it's by so much that it makes up for the fact that casual gamers play games considerably less?
It depends on what aspect your making hardcore. I mean, Diablo 3 is hardcore because of its difficulty. EQ was hardcore because of its time commitments. A marathon is much more hardcore than a sprint but on the grand stage there only a handful of people who can compete in an elite sprint.
A game that is casual to me means you can get in and get out fast and have fun and make progress. It doesn't have to be easy.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I will actually agree that a hard-core player tends to be better simply because they are probably actually practicing and studying.
However I do not agree that the games themselves mmo games angry are any gamer so it's a moot point.
So you think a game that is specifically trying to appeal to a group of players that, by your own admission, is less skilled is not going to be easier than a game that is specifically trying to appeal to a group of players that is more skilled?
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Challenge has nothing to do with casual play. Its more that developers numbers make them afraid to rock the boat on challenge. You could have a game that took 5 hours to max level but totally kicked your ass with skill required.
Maybe not by definition, but casual games will tend to be easier because casual players will tend to be less skilled than hardcore players.
From what I've seen, people are equally bad in hardcore games as in the casual friendly ones. They just like to beat their chests more for some reason.
My anecdotal evidence contradicts your anecdotal evidence, and logic supports me. Hardcore gamers play more, they will tend to be better.
Amount of practice is not everything. It is also the quality of practice that counts. For example, you can have 1 hour of challenging gameplay versus 6 hours of doing practically nothing.
Hardcore games tend to waste your time more. Your move.
No, they don't. How do hardcore games waste your time more? And by how much? Do you think it's by so much that it makes up for the fact that casual gamers play games considerably less?
It depends on what aspect your making hardcore. I mean, Diablo 3 is hardcore because of its difficulty. EQ was hardcore because of its time commitments. A marathon is much more hardcore than a sprint but on the grand stage there only a handful of people who can compete in an elite sprint.
A game that is casual to me means you can get in and get out fast and have fun and make progress. It doesn't have to be easy.
It's not about "has to." It's about what actually happens. If casual gamers are less skilled, on average, than hardcore gamers, then a game that is trying to appeal to casual gamers would obviously be easier than a game that is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers. I'm not sure if you count this as meaning it "has to be easier" but the point is they ARE, on average, easier. Why would they not be? They're appealing to people who don't play games as often.
And again, just look at games throughout history. So many franchises have deliberately made their games easier to appeal to a wider, more casual audience.
TFC -> TF2
Broodwar -> SC2
Darkfall Online -> Darkfall Unholy Wars
Even the genre of RTS compared to its offspring MOBAs.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Challenge has nothing to do with casual play. Its more that developers numbers make them afraid to rock the boat on challenge. You could have a game that took 5 hours to max level but totally kicked your ass with skill required.
Maybe not by definition, but casual games will tend to be easier because casual players will tend to be less skilled than hardcore players.
From what I've seen, people are equally bad in hardcore games as in the casual friendly ones. They just like to beat their chests more for some reason.
My anecdotal evidence contradicts your anecdotal evidence, and logic supports me. Hardcore gamers play more, they will tend to be better.
Amount of practice is not everything. It is also the quality of practice that counts. For example, you can have 1 hour of challenging gameplay versus 6 hours of doing practically nothing.
Hardcore games tend to waste your time more. Your move.
No, they don't. How do hardcore games waste your time more? And by how much? Do you think it's by so much that it makes up for the fact that casual gamers play games considerably less?
It depends on what aspect your making hardcore. I mean, Diablo 3 is hardcore because of its difficulty. EQ was hardcore because of its time commitments. A marathon is much more hardcore than a sprint but on the grand stage there only a handful of people who can compete in an elite sprint.
A game that is casual to me means you can get in and get out fast and have fun and make progress. It doesn't have to be easy.
It's not about "has to." It's about what actually happens. If casual gamers are less skilled, on average, than hardcore gamers, then a game that is trying to appeal to casual gamers would obviously be easier than a game that is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers. I'm not sure if you count this as meaning it "has to be easier" but the point is they ARE, on average, easier. Why would they not be? They're appealing to people who don't play games as often.
And again, just look at games throughout history. So many franchises have deliberately made their games easier to appeal to a wider, more casual audience.
TFC -> TF2
Broodwar -> SC2
Darkfall Online -> Darkfall Unholy Wars
Even the genre of RTS compared to its offspring MOBAs.
Again it depends on what kind of "hardcore" you're talking about. There is an extreme threshold to "hardcore." It doesn't have to be difficulty. In MMORPG's hardcore tend to be time consume or just generally unpopular features. I am not sure any MMORPG counts as difficult. EQ was probably the hardest or at least most unforgiving.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Challenge has nothing to do with casual play. Its more that developers numbers make them afraid to rock the boat on challenge. You could have a game that took 5 hours to max level but totally kicked your ass with skill required.
Maybe not by definition, but casual games will tend to be easier because casual players will tend to be less skilled than hardcore players.
From what I've seen, people are equally bad in hardcore games as in the casual friendly ones. They just like to beat their chests more for some reason.
My anecdotal evidence contradicts your anecdotal evidence, and logic supports me. Hardcore gamers play more, they will tend to be better.
Amount of practice is not everything. It is also the quality of practice that counts. For example, you can have 1 hour of challenging gameplay versus 6 hours of doing practically nothing.
Hardcore games tend to waste your time more. Your move.
No, they don't. How do hardcore games waste your time more? And by how much? Do you think it's by so much that it makes up for the fact that casual gamers play games considerably less?
It depends on what aspect your making hardcore. I mean, Diablo 3 is hardcore because of its difficulty. EQ was hardcore because of its time commitments. A marathon is much more hardcore than a sprint but on the grand stage there only a handful of people who can compete in an elite sprint.
A game that is casual to me means you can get in and get out fast and have fun and make progress. It doesn't have to be easy.
It's not about "has to." It's about what actually happens. If casual gamers are less skilled, on average, than hardcore gamers, then a game that is trying to appeal to casual gamers would obviously be easier than a game that is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers. I'm not sure if you count this as meaning it "has to be easier" but the point is they ARE, on average, easier. Why would they not be? They're appealing to people who don't play games as often.
And again, just look at games throughout history. So many franchises have deliberately made their games easier to appeal to a wider, more casual audience.
TFC -> TF2
Broodwar -> SC2
Darkfall Online -> Darkfall Unholy Wars
Even the genre of RTS compared to its offspring MOBAs.
Again it depends on what kind of "hardcore" you're talking about. There is an extreme threshold to "hardcore." It doesn't have to be difficulty. In MMORPG's hardcore tend to be time consume or just generally unpopular features. I am not sure any MMORPG counts as difficult. EQ was probably the hardest or at least most unforgiving.
The average hardcore game. Be it MMO, platformer, RTS, whatever else. Compare that to average casual game. The hardcore games will tend to be harder. I think this is pretty intuitive. Not sure why anybody is even trying to deny it.
Also, there definitely are MMOs that are difficult. However, the bulk of the mainstream MMOs (themeparks) typically are not very difficult. But oldschool UO required a good amount of skill, as did Darkfall 1, as does Darkfall 2.
At Holo. No an mmo that is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers typically does so only by making things longer not harder. So far in mmo they do not require any more skill.
They should do other things. Thus far they haven't.Not any more ththan casual games anyway
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar At Holo. No an mmo that is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers typically does so only by making things longer not harder. So far in mmo they do not require any more skill.
They should do other things. Thus far they haven't.Not any more ththan casual games anyway
Step 1: Market game as "hardcore".
Step 2: Arbitrarily increase difficulty with increased mob health and/or decreased player damage output, etc. which leads to
Step 3: Increase amount of time it takes to do more or less anything in the game.
Step 4: Do not reveal much information about what players must do to achieve goals, again leading to
Step 5: Increased amounts of time to do more or less anything in the game.
Step 6: Because the players are human and not aliens, they will look at the amount of time they've spent playing the game, and will adjust their perspective to one that views the game as "worth it", and that views their skills as "good".
Step 7: Keep collecting money from the players.
The trick is getting the players to keep playing after the first day or two.
**
Step 6.5: The more time spent in the game, the more players will reinforce the view that the game is worth it and that their individual skill is the reason they are playing the game, not the mental gymnastics that people put themselves through to justify their behavior. The point of view could stick around for years depending on how slowly the developer works the player up into the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Regarding factor analysis. That is typically used when looking at more than one unknown variable. In my example we are looking at one known variable time and one test variable practice.
We would use anova. And that is exactly how analysis works.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar At Holo. No an mmo that is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers typically does so only by making things longer not harder. So far in mmo they do not require any more skill.
They should do other things. Thus far they haven't.Not any more ththan casual games anyway
So it's a coincidence that arguably the most hardcore MMO (darkfall online) was also the most mechanically difficult?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Mechanically difficult? Did you somehow miss everyone skulking up at the bloodwall? Sorry nothing about that was hard.
Other players were a challenge. Not the game mechanics.
Why do you assume the object of the game is to level a skill? Playing the game was difficult. That includes pvp, and pve. What ELSE would you consider to be difficult other than fast paced twitch combat with a lot of spells to pick from based on the situation you're in at that specific moment? Honestly, what IS a difficult game then?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Regarding factor analysis. That is typically used when looking at more than one unknown variable. In my example we are looking at one known variable time and one test variable practice.
We would use anova. And that is exactly how analysis works.
And what would your conclusion be? Time played has what kind of relationship with skill? Because you said this:
Yea they do require time spent but time is not the determining factor. One person spending conscious time to improve an hour every few days will improve more than someone who spends half a day every day just going for the ride.
The time was not the determining factor.
In my opinion, you either can't use TIME in factor analysis like this because you always need time to test any kind of hypothesis, OR you can use time and it has a strong relationship with everything.
But back to the real world, it's flat out silly to say that time spent has nothing to do with skill. Assuming similar cognitive faculties and whatever other variables are the same for each player (because why wouldn't you?), then the people who spend the most time playing the game, will tend to be better at the game.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar now that is a good question. What is a hard game I don't think I've played any video game that I considered hard. Just longer or shorter
Oh dear lord what a waste of time this whole discussion has been. I'm tempted to just leave it here because... wow
However, I'd like to point out how this doesn't make sense. If there are physical actions in a game that you need to perform in order to play it how it's intended to be played, and different people will perform those physical actions with varying levels of success, how is that NOT considered a difficult or easy game? Are these people having varying levels of success because of luck?
Comments
Practicing implies cognition and retention which is more than just time spent.
Just spending time will never ever you better. Ever. In anything.
Getting better involves more than just time. There have been many many studies showing this.
Cognition, schema, retention are all necessary to get better. Not simply time.
Those things REQUIRE time spent in the game... lol. What are we talking about exactly? Because what I'm saying is that if you have two groups of players, the group that spends more time playing will tend to be more skilled.
Also, we're not just talking about MMOs. Also, the hardcore MMOs are harder. One of the most hardcore games, Darkfall Online, was also probably THE hardest. The new darkfall is now probably the hardest (or at least one of the hardest) and is also one of the most hardcore. Even pvp in oldschool UO was very difficult, fast paced, and required skills similar to twitch skills in FPS.
Time and skill being equal between those two the seeing will improve the first will not.
The time was not the determining factor.
Yes but you have no reason to think hardcore players are not paying attention to what they're doing. I'm not saying that the person who plays more will ALWAYS be better than somebody who plays less. I said that group of people will tend to be better, which is true.
This isn't how factor analysis works.
However I do not agree that the games themselves mmo games angry are any gamer so it's a moot point.
It depends on what aspect your making hardcore. I mean, Diablo 3 is hardcore because of its difficulty. EQ was hardcore because of its time commitments. A marathon is much more hardcore than a sprint but on the grand stage there only a handful of people who can compete in an elite sprint.
A game that is casual to me means you can get in and get out fast and have fun and make progress. It doesn't have to be easy.
So you think a game that is specifically trying to appeal to a group of players that, by your own admission, is less skilled is not going to be easier than a game that is specifically trying to appeal to a group of players that is more skilled?
It's not about "has to." It's about what actually happens. If casual gamers are less skilled, on average, than hardcore gamers, then a game that is trying to appeal to casual gamers would obviously be easier than a game that is trying to appeal to hardcore gamers. I'm not sure if you count this as meaning it "has to be easier" but the point is they ARE, on average, easier. Why would they not be? They're appealing to people who don't play games as often.
And again, just look at games throughout history. So many franchises have deliberately made their games easier to appeal to a wider, more casual audience.
TFC -> TF2
Broodwar -> SC2
Darkfall Online -> Darkfall Unholy Wars
Even the genre of RTS compared to its offspring MOBAs.
Again it depends on what kind of "hardcore" you're talking about. There is an extreme threshold to "hardcore." It doesn't have to be difficulty. In MMORPG's hardcore tend to be time consume or just generally unpopular features. I am not sure any MMORPG counts as difficult. EQ was probably the hardest or at least most unforgiving.
The average hardcore game. Be it MMO, platformer, RTS, whatever else. Compare that to average casual game. The hardcore games will tend to be harder. I think this is pretty intuitive. Not sure why anybody is even trying to deny it.
Also, there definitely are MMOs that are difficult. However, the bulk of the mainstream MMOs (themeparks) typically are not very difficult. But oldschool UO required a good amount of skill, as did Darkfall 1, as does Darkfall 2.
They should do other things. Thus far they haven't.Not any more ththan casual games anyway
Step 1: Market game as "hardcore".
Step 2: Arbitrarily increase difficulty with increased mob health and/or decreased player damage output, etc. which leads to
Step 3: Increase amount of time it takes to do more or less anything in the game.
Step 4: Do not reveal much information about what players must do to achieve goals, again leading to
Step 5: Increased amounts of time to do more or less anything in the game.
Step 6: Because the players are human and not aliens, they will look at the amount of time they've spent playing the game, and will adjust their perspective to one that views the game as "worth it", and that views their skills as "good".
Step 7: Keep collecting money from the players.
The trick is getting the players to keep playing after the first day or two.
**
Step 6.5: The more time spent in the game, the more players will reinforce the view that the game is worth it and that their individual skill is the reason they are playing the game, not the mental gymnastics that people put themselves through to justify their behavior. The point of view could stick around for years depending on how slowly the developer works the player up into the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We would use anova. And that is exactly how analysis works.
So it's a coincidence that arguably the most hardcore MMO (darkfall online) was also the most mechanically difficult?
Other players were a challenge. Not the game mechanics.
Skulking actually works there, I think.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Why do you assume the object of the game is to level a skill? Playing the game was difficult. That includes pvp, and pve. What ELSE would you consider to be difficult other than fast paced twitch combat with a lot of spells to pick from based on the situation you're in at that specific moment? Honestly, what IS a difficult game then?
And what would your conclusion be? Time played has what kind of relationship with skill? Because you said this:
Yea they do require time spent but time is not the determining factor. One person spending conscious time to improve an hour every few days will improve more than someone who spends half a day every day just going for the ride.
The time was not the determining factor.
In my opinion, you either can't use TIME in factor analysis like this because you always need time to test any kind of hypothesis, OR you can use time and it has a strong relationship with everything.
But back to the real world, it's flat out silly to say that time spent has nothing to do with skill. Assuming similar cognitive faculties and whatever other variables are the same for each player (because why wouldn't you?), then the people who spend the most time playing the game, will tend to be better at the game.
Oh dear lord what a waste of time this whole discussion has been. I'm tempted to just leave it here because... wow
However, I'd like to point out how this doesn't make sense. If there are physical actions in a game that you need to perform in order to play it how it's intended to be played, and different people will perform those physical actions with varying levels of success, how is that NOT considered a difficult or easy game? Are these people having varying levels of success because of luck?