I am not talking about what games still exist. I am talking about how 10 years ago and earlier, the time that a player would spend in a given game consecutively, was measured in moths (years?) where as now, it's weeks.....if that.
Yes, so? If a game is fun for weeks, is it a bad thing that i play it for weeks, and then move onto something else?
With technology moving so fast, i question the wisdom of games that need to last for years. Sure there are outliers (like wow), but so what if most games are designed to be fun for a few weeks?
Being able to beat a mob solo is the same as having to bring a group to beat it. Sure... in Bizzaro world maybe.
This just shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how games are balanced. IF an encounter is designed for groups, it's balanced in a way to account for the stats in play, the same way a solo encounter is designed. It's all basically numbers at play. On a fundamental level one can be just as difficult as the other. If you bring a group to a solo encounter you trivialize the encounter, if you approach a group obstacle solo, your chances are slim in defeating it if it's rigidly designed, excluding of course using pathing as well as environmental exploitation of the event (which is nothing more than oversight on behalf of the creator).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If I had to try to re-summarize what I am saying. It would be this.Games like WoW do not, and never have lacked for playable content. What they do lack is any reason to play through the vast majority of it.
What are the reasons to play through content?
Are you getting at the "you can play it if you want" response? I mean yeah, it's there, but none of it lines up with the current reward system. Anything that I'd focus on at level 60 can be outdone in an hour or two in HFP. You get to level 58 in WoW and you hit HFP for a couple levels. Maybe do some dungeons and skip over one or 2 zones altogether in Outland until you get to 68 then never look back. an entire 2 years of content, reduced to a few stepping stones. All that stuff just sitting there abandoned with no reason to play it. One thing I became very aware of when Wrath released and I played a DK. At that point, Almost all of Vanilla WoW became irrelevant.
But at the same time, the games themselves promote that. There's no doubt, there were fewer titles, thus fewer interesting titles, but today, I can play a game for a short time, as I usually do, jump over to another for a bit and catch up on that, then I can play a 3rd before circling back to the 1st.
It's not necessarily how I want them to be, it's just how they are. Next week, I'm considering jumping back into SWTOR. Not sure. Maybe WoW or even HoT. It won't be all 3 though.
However, what if there was a game that was still able to capture your full attention for a longer period? Not saying you'd be playing differently. But I would.
It's basically a matter of the player approaching these games differently. They treat them as such out of choice (they devour content and move to the next buffet). Like I said in either this thread or one of the others on the same exact topic (hard to tell as they're essentially the same discussion)... The major difference between games today and games of yesterday is the approach with scripted/story content. They play it for that only. The presence of such content seems to dictate folks ability to see anything more in such a game.
Remove that and what do you have? Essentially the same game they always were; an empty world with creatures to kill and folks to do it with.
This is what is perplexing to me about the MMO crowd as a whole, they seem to want empty games, just look at all of the praise for Nine Lives... It's a shell with a game to come at some point, much like Project Gorgon... IF they actually started adding deep story content to such titles I'd put money on that praise changing to woe is me...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Umm there are tons of games with looting corpses, building your character how you want, great housing and everything old games had. Try stuff like Albion Online, Shards, Shroud of the Avatar and many more of these "sandbox" or "hardcore" MMORPGs.
Sick of people talking about the great old days, games nowadays have all that those had and more.
Nope, new games are missing longevity.
No, just no. Way to massively simplify things just to support your own views. Khameleon mentions games that have more substance and depth your precious old games ever did and you blindly dismiss it. it is easy to say these games are lacking longevity if you are not even looking for it, how shallow.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes, just yes. And it is that simple. Games used to be designed for a prolonged experience with slow small steady rewards over time. Now, it's all about instant gratification quick and easy rewards given for nothing more than logging in. As if that was even an exaggeration now. It isn't. There's no need to keep logging into a game for 12 months when I have everything out of it after 2.
By the way, you claim I am "supporting my views" but then you go on to counter it with your own subjectivity. I suppose you can verify that games currently have "more substance and depth" than my "precious old games" ever did? and that I "blindly" dismissed it (What is "it" here that I have blindly dismissed anyway?) And what exactly do you know what and how I have looked for in newer games? And end it with an Ad-Hom to punctuate your post. Nice one.
I haven't got a clue what you are looking for in games and how you play them. I couldn't know any of that by reading your post. Your post simply tells Khameleon that no matter what new game he presents to you, he is wrong, the game is new and therefor lacking longevity. Yes, that is a shallow way of reacting and you are blindly dismissing suggestions made by others if this is the rule you apply to your games. Is this what you actually do? I haven't got a clue but it is how you present yourself and that is how I have reacted to your post. No, I can not verify that older games had more (or less) depth and substance, then again, you can not verify it either and still you are presenting this as fact, that might be why I responded the way I did to your original post.
And 'it' wasn't the best word to use, I was referring to the games Khameleon mentioned in his post.
I could be completely wrong about you but your post didn't leave any room for interpretation.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The major difference between games today and games of yesterday is the approach with scripted/story content. They play it for that only. The presence of such content seems to dictate folks ability to see anything more in such a game.
Because there is little more in such a game that they would care about? Sure, you can also do pvp, and some eventually leads to e-sports.
But I don't think there is a problem if people just want to jump around, consume content, and then move on. It is not like there is a lack of games to play. It is the same way with single player games. You "finish" one, and go to the next one.
Umm there are tons of games with looting corpses, building your character how you want, great housing and everything old games had. Try stuff like Albion Online, Shards, Shroud of the Avatar and many more of these "sandbox" or "hardcore" MMORPGs.
Sick of people talking about the great old days, games nowadays have all that those had and more.
Nope, new games are missing longevity.
No, just no. Way to massively simplify things just to support your own views. Khameleon mentions games that have more substance and depth your precious old games ever did and you blindly dismiss it. it is easy to say these games are lacking longevity if you are not even looking for it, how shallow.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes, just yes. And it is that simple. Games used to be designed for a prolonged experience with slow small steady rewards over time. Now, it's all about instant gratification quick and easy rewards given for nothing more than logging in. As if that was even an exaggeration now. It isn't. There's no need to keep logging into a game for 12 months when I have everything out of it after 2.
By the way, you claim I am "supporting my views" but then you go on to counter it with your own subjectivity. I suppose you can verify that games currently have "more substance and depth" than my "precious old games" ever did? and that I "blindly" dismissed it (What is "it" here that I have blindly dismissed anyway?) And what exactly do you know what and how I have looked for in newer games? And end it with an Ad-Hom to punctuate your post. Nice one.
I haven't got a clue what you are looking for in games and how you play them. I couldn't know any of that by reading your post. Your post simply tells Khameleon that no matter what new game he presents to you, he is wrong, the game is new and therefor lacking longevity. Yes, that is a shallow way of reacting and you are blindly dismissing suggestions made by others if this is the rule you apply to your games. Is this what you actually do? I haven't got a clue but it is how you present yourself and that is how I have reacted to your post. No, I can not verify that older games had more (or less) depth and substance, then again, you can not verify it either and still you are presenting this as fact, that might be why I responded the way I did to your original post.
And 'it' wasn't the best word to use, I was referring to the games Khameleon mentioned in his post.
I could be completely wrong about you but your post didn't leave any room for interpretation.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
No, I think we interpreted his initial post differently then. I read in his post. " games nowadays have all that those had and more." and I don't think that's an accurate statement, because to me, they don't. I just disagreed with it.
So the difference is, most likely. that you saw him implying the word "some" before games, where I saw "all"
The major difference between games today and games of yesterday is the approach with scripted/story content. They play it for that only. The presence of such content seems to dictate folks ability to see anything more in such a game.
Because there is little more in such a game that they would care about? Sure, you can also do pvp, and some eventually leads to e-sports.
But I don't think there is a problem if people just want to jump around, consume content, and then move on. It is not like there is a lack of games to play. It is the same way with single player games. You "finish" one, and go to the next one.
The major difference between games today and games of yesterday is the approach with scripted/story content. They play it for that only. The presence of such content seems to dictate folks ability to see anything more in such a game.
Because there is little more in such a game that they would care about? Sure, you can also do pvp, and some eventually leads to e-sports.
But I don't think there is a problem if people just want to jump around, consume content, and then move on. It is not like there is a lack of games to play. It is the same way with single player games. You "finish" one, and go to the next one.
It's only a problem for them if they turn around and complain about it later. Yet to answer your opening question, or more specifically enlighten to what some folks think is missing, communities forming inside the game, yet that takes many willing to commit to that, it just doesn't happen anymore outside of guilds. Which isn't really a problem in my eyes, if that's how the majority want to play. You can't force such a thing, you can only add incentive to do so. Which is what late game guild systems are all about.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
like someone said "supply and demand" dumbed down products for dumbed down people.
Gamer logic at it's finest; do you not realize how asinine it is to interpret a more casual approach with dumbness? Do you not realize it's more about commitment than anything else? Gotta love folks who use such measures to make themselves feel superior, it really does say a lot...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
like someone said "supply and demand" dumbed down products for dumbed down people.
Gamer logic at it's finest; do you not realize how asinine it is to interpret a more casual approach with dumbness? Do you not realize it's more about commitment than anything else? Gotta love folks who use such measures to make themselves feel superior, it really does say a lot...
No need to be angry about it.
Normal people wont touch dumbed down product and dumbed down people wont touch HC products. and vice verca etc. like we used to choose our difficulty level in games in the past,nothing new.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
like someone said "supply and demand" dumbed down products for dumbed down people.
Gamer logic at it's finest; do you not realize how asinine it is to interpret a more casual approach with dumbness? Do you not realize it's more about commitment than anything else? Gotta love folks who use such measures to make themselves feel superior, it really does say a lot...
No need to be angry about it.
Normal people wont touch dumbed down product and dumbed down people wont touch HC products. and vice verca etc. like we used to choose our diffuculty level in games in the past,nothing new.
LOL, angry, you're hilarious... Again you think it's about intelligence, when the only difference is how long it takes as well as how much you have to commit yourself to it. Any functioning human can learn to play a game, given the ambition to do so.
Gaming became a casual past time more or less, because people from all walks of life do it in this day and age. That's why they can, it's not just a hobby for folks who sit around and focus countless hours of their lives to trivial experiences.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You would have to be specific on those comparisons.
Let's say the retention rates were better. Were they then better because the games were better or because the players were more invested or a different type of player? Or were they better because there were no better/other games so not a lot of choice?
Well there isn't really enough data available to discuss it, as Geezer said.
All of those things are factors. They're not all equally important factors, but they're all factors.
The "subscription" factor I mentioned in my previous post is by itself both a pro and a con. When players are monetarily invested in something, there's this combination of psychological factors where they want to try to get their money's worth, and they also actively convince themselves they enjoy the game more (I've seen stats on several mobile games that launched with both F2P and P2P versions simultaneously, and the P2P one was rated noticeably higher in spite of the only difference being infrequent ads being displayed on the free version.) On the flip side, a subscription fee will work against a game's monthly retention since it will cost the player more money to keep playing next month.
But overall a ton of other factors are involved, such as the lack of competing MMORPGs and the cost of switching (not just the purchase and subscription cost mentioned above, but the loss in progression from your previous MMORPG since now you're playing a new char in a new game.)
Personally I feel there were a ton of reasons early MMORPGs were bad games (by the standards of their time) which would've resulted in bad retention, which would've resulted in far lower population caps (ie EQ's max player population of 450k) and limited advertising (because if the vast majority of players you advertise for don't keep playing longer than the first month, you're not able to spend as much on advertising without also losing money in the long-run.) Whereas when WOW released it solved the majority of obvious gameplay mistakes and probably had substantially higher retention (which would've made advertising break even at a much higher cost, which resulted in more ads, which resulted in more players, so it all combined to generate an extremely successful game with the game's superior player retention being one of the biggest factors behind that success.)
But again, we don't have the evidence to really prove these specific hunches (and I could've even find the free vs paid mobile game comparison article again, so we don't even have that.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you think that people who treat video games like... you know, games, leisure activities, and not second jobs, are "dumbed down"... maybe you should buy a good mirror. It may get you back in touch with reality.
Better yet, approach a professor at just about any prestigious university with such a theory... you may find yourself in the position of having the term inferiority complex explained to you.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What a pathetic thread....and yet we STILL have some that think we need a three paragraph response after 12 pages of stupid arguments...
Hey now just because the premise of a thread is "pathetic", doesn't mean meaningful discourse can not be had within it. Reasonable as well as logical people simply like to discuss/share ideas. You can transcend the petty in favor of reasonable debate.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
like someone said "supply and demand" dumbed down products for dumbed down people.
Gamer logic at it's finest; do you not realize how asinine it is to interpret a more casual approach with dumbness? Do you not realize it's more about commitment than anything else? Gotta love folks who use such measures to make themselves feel superior, it really does say a lot...
No need to be angry about it.
Normal people wont touch dumbed down product and dumbed down people wont touch HC products. and vice verca etc. like we used to choose our difficulty level in games in the past,nothing new.
If you think that people who treat video games like... you know, games, leisure activities, and not second jobs, are "dumbed down"... maybe you should buy a good mirror. It may get you back in touch with reality.
Nonetheless, we should acknowledge there are different kind of people consuming video games. For some they are leisure activites to pass time, others consider them as a hobby and take it more serious than the others do.
Nonetheless, we should acknowledge there are different kind of people consuming video games. For some they are leisure activites to pass time, others consider them as a hobby and take it more serious than the others do.
Which was never in question, of course there are many partaking in these activities at differing degrees. That's the point Jean and I were both trying to highlight. Casualizing these games is all about that, that's why the top layer is so thin, while the bottom layers are much more time consuming. As it's about giving something for the non-committed as well as committed.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What a pathetic thread....and yet we STILL have some that think we need a three paragraph response after 12 pages of stupid arguments...
Hey now just because the premise of a thread is "pathetic", doesn't mean meaningful discourse can not be had within it. Reasonable as well as logical people simply like to discuss/share ideas. You can transcend the petty in favor of reasonable debate.
Yes...you can. But not this thread
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
like someone said "supply and demand" dumbed down products for dumbed down people.
Gamer logic at it's finest; do you not realize how asinine it is to interpret a more casual approach with dumbness? Do you not realize it's more about commitment than anything else? Gotta love folks who use such measures to make themselves feel superior, it really does say a lot...
No need to be angry about it.
Normal people wont touch dumbed down product and dumbed down people wont touch HC products. and vice verca etc. like we used to choose our difficulty level in games in the past,nothing new.
If you think that people who treat video games like... you know, games, leisure activities, and not second jobs, are "dumbed down"... maybe you should buy a good mirror. It may get you back in touch with reality.
Nonetheless, we should acknowledge there are different kind of people consuming video games. For some they are leisure activites to pass time, others consider them as a hobby and take it more serious than the others do.
Let's put this a bit differently. Some people consider it as a hobby, aka a leisure non-mandatory activity they pay for to have fun. Others play games as if it was a second job.
The second category will feel their ego struck when they finally manage to beat some utterly boring time consuming repetitive activity and get some achievment to prove their dedication to what is, at the end, and complete waste of time since it's just a game.
See what I mean?
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Let's put this a bit differently. Some people consider it as a hobby, aka a leisure non-mandatory activity they pay for to have fun. Others play games as if it was a second job.
The second category will feel their ego struck when they finally manage to beat some utterly boring time consuming repetitive activity and get some achievment to prove their dedication to what is, at the end, and complete waste of time since it's just a game.
See what I mean?
Do you think it's petty to point one of the many time wasters we add to our daily lives? As a hardcore gamer myself I can freely admit that's exactly what it is. It's certainly not something to use to hold yourself at a higher regard than folks who simply don't get that, nor want to get that. Being reasonable is first and foremost having the ability to see the ugly side of what you enjoy doing. Anyway you don't want to discuss this topic to begin with..right?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
like someone said "supply and demand" dumbed down products for dumbed down people.
Gamer logic at it's finest; do you not realize how asinine it is to interpret a more casual approach with dumbness? Do you not realize it's more about commitment than anything else? Gotta love folks who use such measures to make themselves feel superior, it really does say a lot...
No need to be angry about it.
Normal people wont touch dumbed down product and dumbed down people wont touch HC products. and vice verca etc. like we used to choose our difficulty level in games in the past,nothing new.
If you think that people who treat video games like... you know, games, leisure activities, and not second jobs, are "dumbed down"... maybe you should buy a good mirror. It may get you back in touch with reality.
Nonetheless, we should acknowledge there are different kind of people consuming video games. For some they are leisure activites to pass time, others consider them as a hobby and take it more serious than the others do.
Let's put this a bit differently. Some people consider it as a hobby, aka a leisure non-mandatory activity they pay for to have fun. Others play games as if it was a second job.
The second category will feel their ego struck when they finally manage to beat some utterly boring time consuming repetitive activity and get some achievment to prove their dedication to what is, at the end, and complete waste of time since it's just a game.
See what I mean?
Are you even reading the posts you are answering to? "Normal people wont touch dumbed down product and dumbed down people wont touch HC products. and vice verca etc."
So what are you? A "normal people"? Or a "dumbed down" person? Please, share with us, instead of posting one liners.
None of the above
I'm a gamer. I just play games. I don't spend my time caring.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Comments
Yes, so? If a game is fun for weeks, is it a bad thing that i play it for weeks, and then move onto something else?
With technology moving so fast, i question the wisdom of games that need to last for years. Sure there are outliers (like wow), but so what if most games are designed to be fun for a few weeks?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Remove that and what do you have? Essentially the same game they always were; an empty world with creatures to kill and folks to do it with.
This is what is perplexing to me about the MMO crowd as a whole, they seem to want empty games, just look at all of the praise for Nine Lives... It's a shell with a game to come at some point, much like Project Gorgon... IF they actually started adding deep story content to such titles I'd put money on that praise changing to woe is me...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And 'it' wasn't the best word to use, I was referring to the games Khameleon mentioned in his post.
I could be completely wrong about you but your post didn't leave any room for interpretation.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
But I don't think there is a problem if people just want to jump around, consume content, and then move on. It is not like there is a lack of games to play. It is the same way with single player games. You "finish" one, and go to the next one.
" games nowadays have all that those had and more."
and I don't think that's an accurate statement, because to me, they don't. I just disagreed with it.
So the difference is, most likely. that you saw him implying the word "some" before games, where I saw "all"
Who, exactly, wouldn't care? You? Who is "they"?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Normal people wont touch dumbed down product and dumbed down people wont touch HC products. and vice verca etc.
like we used to choose our difficulty level in games in the past,nothing new.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Gaming became a casual past time more or less, because people from all walks of life do it in this day and age. That's why they can, it's not just a hobby for folks who sit around and focus countless hours of their lives to trivial experiences.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
All of those things are factors. They're not all equally important factors, but they're all factors.
The "subscription" factor I mentioned in my previous post is by itself both a pro and a con. When players are monetarily invested in something, there's this combination of psychological factors where they want to try to get their money's worth, and they also actively convince themselves they enjoy the game more (I've seen stats on several mobile games that launched with both F2P and P2P versions simultaneously, and the P2P one was rated noticeably higher in spite of the only difference being infrequent ads being displayed on the free version.) On the flip side, a subscription fee will work against a game's monthly retention since it will cost the player more money to keep playing next month.
But overall a ton of other factors are involved, such as the lack of competing MMORPGs and the cost of switching (not just the purchase and subscription cost mentioned above, but the loss in progression from your previous MMORPG since now you're playing a new char in a new game.)
Personally I feel there were a ton of reasons early MMORPGs were bad games (by the standards of their time) which would've resulted in bad retention, which would've resulted in far lower population caps (ie EQ's max player population of 450k) and limited advertising (because if the vast majority of players you advertise for don't keep playing longer than the first month, you're not able to spend as much on advertising without also losing money in the long-run.) Whereas when WOW released it solved the majority of obvious gameplay mistakes and probably had substantially higher retention (which would've made advertising break even at a much higher cost, which resulted in more ads, which resulted in more players, so it all combined to generate an extremely successful game with the game's superior player retention being one of the biggest factors behind that success.)
But again, we don't have the evidence to really prove these specific hunches (and I could've even find the free vs paid mobile game comparison article again, so we don't even have that.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm a gamer. I just play games. I don't spend my time caring.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."