I have enough things that are not fun in life. I want my entertainment games to be fun 100% of the time I am playing. If not then it is not accomplishing it's reason for existence.
I have enough things that are not fun in life. I want my entertainment games to be fun 100% of the time I am playing. If not then it is not accomplishing it's reason for existence.
Fun is only one aspect
I want to be entertained.
Are they the same? Doesn't fun entertains?
Entertainment encompass's more than just fun.
For example: you can watch a movie that makes you cry your eyes out. It can entertain you and leave you with a very positive experience.
If those things are fun and entertaining then no problem. If they are not then it is not accomplishing it's purpose. again There is enough challenge and struggle and meaning in RL. The games purpose is entertainment.
And we all consider the same exact things to be fun. Never a case of you like one thing and another finds something else different.
Did not state or imply that what I find fun others do or are required to or anything of the sort.
I stated my reasons for playing a game.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No, the industry certainly isn't a bag of black liquorish jelly beans. Its a bag of focus group tested most preferred flavor. Missing the point that people liked jelly beans for the variety, rare unique colors/flavors, and the occasional bad tasting wtf bean ( like those buttered popcorn flavored beans for whatever reason being there) And now we have nothing but white beans that are fruit punch flavored, because some are color blind and its only fair to make them no color, and fruit punch...51% said it was their favorite flavor while 49% was spread across all the variety and they never bothered to ask "what about jelly beans do you like most" and assumed everyone wanted all of the one flavor they liked best.
I don't think that companies necessarily want to only produce one type of jelly bean - it is the time and money it takes to produce different colored/flavored jelly beans. Say it takes 1 million dollars per flavor you introduce, but your market research shows that 51% will like one flavor, 16% another flavor, 12% a third flavor and all the other flavors have less than 10% of the market.
What will the company do? They will make sure that they have the best flavor covered and they might add a second flavor if they think they will get a good enough return for the effort it takes. The other flavors? Not going to happen.
It's silly to imply things have to be crappy most of the time to be enjoyable.
That is how Eve players like it.
Right, but it's not a requirement to be enjoyable. You have ~400k EVE players over there, and then millions upon millions of players enjoying fun-all-the-time games over here.
You're comparing the population of one game with how many? What kind of argument are you trying to make?
OP sees what is wrong with games in his mind and I agree. You do not. End of discussion really.
You're comparing the population of one game with how many? What kind of argument are you trying to make?
OP sees what is wrong with games in his mind and I agree. You do not. End of discussion really.
Why is this unclear to you? You literally quoted the entire relevant conversation where the conversation logically went from (a) my pointing out things don't have to be deliberately crappy to be enjoyable, to (b) someone else bringing up EVE as a game with deliberate crappiness, to (c) my making it clear that EVE didn't dispute what I was saying, since millions of non-EVE players enjoy their gaming while only a tiny fraction enjoy games with deliberate crappiness.
So from a purely objective standpoint this isn't something that's "wrong with games". Just like you don't make jellybeans better by filling 80% of the bag with crappy jellybeans.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're comparing the population of one game with how many? What kind of argument are you trying to make?
OP sees what is wrong with games in his mind and I agree. You do not. End of discussion really.
Why is this unclear to you? You literally quoted the entire relevant conversation where the conversation logically went from (a) my pointing out things don't have to be deliberately crappy to be enjoyable, to (b) someone else bringing up EVE as a game with deliberate crappiness, to (c) my making it clear that EVE didn't dispute what I was saying, since millions of non-EVE players enjoy their gaming while only a tiny fraction enjoy games with deliberate crappiness.
So from a purely objective standpoint this isn't something that's "wrong with games". Just like you don't make jellybeans better by filling 80% of the bag with crappy jellybeans.
Like many discussions, there is no middle ground. Either it is "fun" or "horribly masochistic." How about "less fun?" Where do you place "chance of failure" at? How about "loss of something", like gear, or XP, or God forbid... time? Are these at your farthest end with "horribly masochistic?"
Or is this yet another attempt to paint those who disagree as terrible people? If we do not agree with your idea of fun, we all must be horribly masochistic?
You're comparing the population of one game with how many? What kind of argument are you trying to make?
OP sees what is wrong with games in his mind and I agree. You do not. End of discussion really.
Why is this unclear to you? You literally quoted the entire relevant conversation where the conversation logically went from (a) my pointing out things don't have to be deliberately crappy to be enjoyable, to (b) someone else bringing up EVE as a game with deliberate crappiness, to (c) my making it clear that EVE didn't dispute what I was saying, since millions of non-EVE players enjoy their gaming while only a tiny fraction enjoy games with deliberate crappiness.
So from a purely objective standpoint this isn't something that's "wrong with games". Just like you don't make jellybeans better by filling 80% of the bag with crappy jellybeans.
Like many discussions, there is no middle ground. Either it is "fun" or "horribly masochistic." How about "less fun?" Where do you place "chance of failure" at? How about "loss of something", like gear, or XP, or God forbid... time? Are these at your farthest end with "horribly masochistic?"
Or is this yet another attempt to paint those who disagree as terrible people? If we do not agree with your idea of fun, we all must be horribly masochistic?
I don't look at things like XP loss as masochistic, yet it's only real purpose was elongated subscriptions, the more they pushed you back, the longer it took to reach the end (longer you were subbed). Can you show me any example of this in games that are not sub based?
As for gear it can work in games like SWG or EVE... where commerce is a true play-style to be undertook. Yet in games based on gear grinds, it would be nonsensical.
Almost all games punish you in regard to time. Make it all the way to the boss of the dungeon but died? Sorry you wasted your time, try again...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You're comparing the population of one game with how many? What kind of argument are you trying to make?
OP sees what is wrong with games in his mind and I agree. You do not. End of discussion really.
Why is this unclear to you? You literally quoted the entire relevant conversation where the conversation logically went from (a) my pointing out things don't have to be deliberately crappy to be enjoyable, to (b) someone else bringing up EVE as a game with deliberate crappiness, to (c) my making it clear that EVE didn't dispute what I was saying, since millions of non-EVE players enjoy their gaming while only a tiny fraction enjoy games with deliberate crappiness.
So from a purely objective standpoint this isn't something that's "wrong with games". Just like you don't make jellybeans better by filling 80% of the bag with crappy jellybeans.
Like many discussions, there is no middle ground. Either it is "fun" or "horribly masochistic." How about "less fun?" Where do you place "chance of failure" at? How about "loss of something", like gear, or XP, or God forbid... time? Are these at your farthest end with "horribly masochistic?"
Or is this yet another attempt to paint those who disagree as terrible people? If we do not agree with your idea of fun, we all must be horribly masochistic?
I would like to know how something is masochistic if it is fake. No one is really suffering in a game. It is simple the illusion of suffering. I guess one might argue that if they had to play to the point their body started to suffer from lack of attention and taking care of it then you might have an argument. Otherwise it is simple a game that is trying to portray the illusion of suffering or the illusion of fear that would be present in a fantasy world set in a medieval setting.
Like many discussions, there is no middle ground. Either it is "fun" or "horribly masochistic." How about "less fun?" Where do you place "chance of failure" at? How about "loss of something", like gear, or XP, or God forbid... time? Are these at your farthest end with "horribly masochistic?"
Or is this yet another attempt to paint those who disagree as terrible people? If we do not agree with your idea of fun, we all must be horribly masochistic?
A chance at failure is great. A game is at its best when it offers each player their sweet spot of challenge (because too easy is boring and too hard is frustrating.) This is often done in other game genres with a difficulty selector, but MMORPGs are poorly-designed because this feature almost never exists. This causes most of their gameplay to be outside a player's sweet spot, resulting in a more boring game (though you'll usually eventually find a satisfying challenge somewhere in progression.)
The required penalty for failure is a fight reset. If you fail, you die* and must do the fight over. This lets players practice and improve, which is where the fun of gaming is most commonly experienced.
Penalty beyond that is excess. It's purposeless punishment. Masochism.
*It's worth pointing out that character death is not the only type of failure. There is always a passive skill-check in terms of how fast and efficiently you kill mobs, which is also rewarded (a skilled player in these games can kill mobs twice as fast or faster than an unskilled one, and will end up with that much more rewards too.) This is why games can remain interesting even when character death is very rare, because there is always a dynamic skill challenge being experienced at all times.
There are varying degrees of masochism, and all I've pointed out is that deliberately designing things crappy (like this death penalty example) is masochistic. It's bad, and there's no reason it should be bad. So it's masochistic. I didn't take it to the extreme like you did by labeling it "horribly masochistic". That's your extremism.
Also I'm not using the term to call people terrible. Some of my best friends are masochists!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Like many discussions, there is no middle ground. Either it is "fun" or "horribly masochistic." How about "less fun?" Where do you place "chance of failure" at? How about "loss of something", like gear, or XP, or God forbid... time? Are these at your farthest end with "horribly masochistic?"
Or is this yet another attempt to paint those who disagree as terrible people? If we do not agree with your idea of fun, we all must be horribly masochistic?
A chance at failure is great. A game is at its best when it offers each player their sweet spot of challenge (because too easy is boring and too hard is frustrating.) This is often done in other game genres with a difficulty selector, but MMORPGs are poorly-designed because this feature almost never exists. This causes most of their gameplay to be outside a player's sweet spot, resulting in a more boring game (though you'll usually eventually find a satisfying challenge somewhere in progression.)
The required penalty for failure is a fight reset. If you fail, you must do the fight over. This lets players practice and improve, which is where the fun of gaming is most commonly experienced.
Penalty beyond that is excess. It's purposeless punishment. Masochism.
There are varying degrees of masochism, and all I've pointed out is that deliberately designing things crappy (like this death penalty example) is masochistic. It's bad, and there's no reason it should be bad. So it's masochistic. I didn't take it to the extreme like you did by labeling it "horribly masochistic". That's your extremism.
Also I'm not using the term to call people terrible. Some of my best friends are masochists!
You haven't really explained why it is bad other than you lose money because some people will quit. From the standpoint of actually playing the game and being immersed in it a death penalty can provide a certain emotion to players when exploring that creates the illusion of a dangerous world. Respawning and trying right away may keep players playing your game, but it also kills any immersion as you can't be afraid to die if you are just going to respawn and try again. That means the illusion of a dangerous world is impossible to achieve.
A chance at failure is great. A game is at its best when it offers each player their sweet spot of challenge (because too easy is boring and too hard is frustrating.) This is often done in other game genres with a difficulty selector, but MMORPGs are poorly-designed because this feature almost never exists. This causes most of their gameplay to be outside a player's sweet spot, resulting in a more boring game (though you'll usually eventually find a satisfying challenge somewhere in progression.)
There is *some*. DDO let you pick dungeon difficulties. In WoW, you can choose 3 levels of raids. I agree mmorpgs can do more, but no AAA devs are making mmorpgs anymore, so it may be moot.
You haven't really explained why it is bad other than you lose money because some people will quit. From the standpoint of actually playing the game and being immersed in it a death penalty can provide a certain emotion to players when exploring that creates the illusion of a dangerous world. Respawning and trying right away may keep players playing your game, but it also kills any immersion as you can't be afraid to die if you are just going to respawn and try again. That means the illusion of a dangerous world is impossible to achieve.
It's bad because it offers no interesting decisions. The game just kicks you in the groin when you fail.
That's not a decision, it's just something that happens to you.
It's bad because it discourages interesting decisions. You avoid tough encounters when you know the game will kick you in the groin for failing.
As a result, you experience fewer interesting decisions because you're avoiding the game's toughest challenges where those decisions are at their most interesting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is *some*. DDO let you pick dungeon difficulties. In WoW, you can choose 3 levels of raids. I agree mmorpgs can do more, but no AAA devs are making mmorpgs anymore, so it may be moot.
Right. "Almost never" wasn't a combination of words I used randomly.
Although it's probably worth mentioning WOW doesn't really have the right form of difficulty selection. It's far more common to work through the difficulty levels as a type of progression, rather than to select one based on your guild's skill level.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't look at things like XP loss as masochistic, yet it's only real purpose was elongated subscriptions, the more they pushed you back, the longer it took to reach the end (longer you were subbed). Can you show me any example of this in games that are not sub based?
Tons of MUDs have xp loss, really long leveling curves, and even these rooms called death traps that when you hit them would instant kill you and take all your items. All of these MUDs are completely free.
So no xp loss, long leveling curves, and even instant death traps were not game mechanics invented just to make people subscribe longer because they existed before EQ in free MUDs that EQ took inspiration from.
These mechanics were not in place to get more money in MUDs they were there as fail states that the player needed to be aware of and consider and extended progression purely for the sake of progression.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I don't look at things like XP loss as masochistic, yet it's only real purpose was elongated subscriptions, the more they pushed you back, the longer it took to reach the end (longer you were subbed). Can you show me any example of this in games that are not sub based?
Tons of MUDs have xp loss, really long leveling curves, and even these rooms called death traps that when you hit them would instant kill you and take all your items. All of these MUDs are completely free.
So no xp loss, long leveling curves, and even instant death traps were not game mechanics invented just to make people subscribe longer because they existed before EQ in free MUDs that EQ took inspiration from.
These mechanics were not in place to get more money in MUDs they were there as fail states that the player needed to be aware of and consider and extended progression purely for the sake of progression.
Fair enough I never played MUDs, still doesn't change my opinion of the method it "was" used for in MMORPGs.. It felt like it was nothing more than blocking progress in games like Lineage 2.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
There is *some*. DDO let you pick dungeon difficulties. In WoW, you can choose 3 levels of raids. I agree mmorpgs can do more, but no AAA devs are making mmorpgs anymore, so it may be moot.
Right. "Almost never" wasn't a combination of words I used randomly.
and i never said you were wrong .. and just gave some examples when it happens. In fact, i agree more games should have better difficulty selectors.
You haven't really explained why it is bad other than you lose money because some people will quit. From the standpoint of actually playing the game and being immersed in it a death penalty can provide a certain emotion to players when exploring that creates the illusion of a dangerous world. Respawning and trying right away may keep players playing your game, but it also kills any immersion as you can't be afraid to die if you are just going to respawn and try again. That means the illusion of a dangerous world is impossible to achieve.
It's bad because it offers no interesting decisions. The game just kicks you in the groin when you fail.
That's not a decision, it's just something that happens to you.
It's bad because it discourages interesting decisions. You avoid tough encounters when you know the game will kick you in the groin for failing.
As a result, you experience fewer interesting decisions because you're avoiding the game's toughest challenges where those decisions are at their most interesting.
I would call that trial and error learning. If you play with fire you get burned. Then you know not to do it again.
I would call that trial and error learning. If you play with fire you get burned. Then you know not to do it again.
Or you don't even try. Bad idea for games if exploring different gameplay options are to be encouraged.
I don't really agree. When you experiment you find what you can and can't do. That is the whole point. As I pointed out before the exploration is fairly meaningless if you can't create a feeling of danger. The illusion of danger comes from knowing there is a price to pay for failure. It means you will be less likely to be reckless, but it doesn't deter you from exploring if done well. In an exploration game you would have little choice to explore anyway. By the logic presented here no one would have beaten the original Legend of Zelda because they would be to afraid to explore. They would just sit in a safe spot and kill the same monster they know they can kill over and over again.
Like many discussions, there is no middle ground. Either it is "fun" or "horribly masochistic." How about "less fun?" Where do you place "chance of failure" at? How about "loss of something", like gear, or XP, or God forbid... time? Are these at your farthest end with "horribly masochistic?"
Or is this yet another attempt to paint those who disagree as terrible people? If we do not agree with your idea of fun, we all must be horribly masochistic?
A chance at failure is great. A game is at its best when it offers each player their sweet spot of challenge (because too easy is boring and too hard is frustrating.) This is often done in other game genres with a difficulty selector, but MMORPGs are poorly-designed because this feature almost never exists. This causes most of their gameplay to be outside a player's sweet spot, resulting in a more boring game (though you'll usually eventually find a satisfying challenge somewhere in progression.)
The required penalty for failure is a fight reset. If you fail, you must do the fight over. This lets players practice and improve, which is where the fun of gaming is most commonly experienced.
Penalty beyond that is excess. It's purposeless punishment. Masochism.
There are varying degrees of masochism, and all I've pointed out is that deliberately designing things crappy (like this death penalty example) is masochistic. It's bad, and there's no reason it should be bad. So it's masochistic. I didn't take it to the extreme like you did by labeling it "horribly masochistic". That's your extremism.
Also I'm not using the term to call people terrible. Some of my best friends are masochists!
You haven't really explained why it is bad other than you lose money because some people will quit. From the standpoint of actually playing the game and being immersed in it a death penalty can provide a certain emotion to players when exploring that creates the illusion of a dangerous world. Respawning and trying right away may keep players playing your game, but it also kills any immersion as you can't be afraid to die if you are just going to respawn and try again. That means the illusion of a dangerous world is impossible to achieve.
There is nothing to explain. Axehilt's opinions on subjects are discussed as facts.
The more likely truth is that there are players with different opinions and tolerances to fun, difficulty and challenge. Developers in this genre will not risk upsetting the botttomline. More players are tolerant to being unchallenged than those they may lose with challenge threshold higher.
This genre gets away with a lot because of familiarity with traditional rites of passage. Many players view quest grinding to be the only format for players progression whether it's truly fun or not. It's just how it's done. My opinion of course.
I would call that trial and error learning. If you play with fire you get burned. Then you know not to do it again.
Again, you still haven't named something that doesn't happen with the regular bare-minimum penalty for failure. Without that reason, harsh death penalty lacks a purpose.
(In light-penalty games you still learn that standing in the fire gets you wiped. If you don't, you keep wiping. The game doesn't also kick you in the groin for wiping, but neither does it award you victory. You'll keep wiping until you learn to do it right.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would call that trial and error learning. If you play with fire you get burned. Then you know not to do it again.
Again, you still haven't named something that doesn't happen with the regular bare-minimum penalty for failure. Without that reason, harsh death penalty lacks a purpose.
(In light-penalty games you still learn that standing in the fire gets you wiped. If you don't, you keep wiping. The game doesn't also kick you in the groin for wiping, but neither does it award you victory. You'll keep wiping until you learn to do it right.)
Exactly. You don't learn anything by losing experience. Forcing players to go back and level up again to face the same encounter is archaic game design.
Comments
For example: you can watch a movie that makes you cry your eyes out. It can entertain you and leave you with a very positive experience.
was it fun? maybe
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I stated my reasons for playing a game.
I don't think that companies necessarily want to only produce one type of jelly bean - it is the time and money it takes to produce different colored/flavored jelly beans. Say it takes 1 million dollars per flavor you introduce, but your market research shows that 51% will like one flavor, 16% another flavor, 12% a third flavor and all the other flavors have less than 10% of the market.
What will the company do? They will make sure that they have the best flavor covered and they might add a second flavor if they think they will get a good enough return for the effort it takes. The other flavors? Not going to happen.
OP sees what is wrong with games in his mind and I agree. You do not. End of discussion really.
You don't ever loss things. Or waste any time.
So from a purely objective standpoint this isn't something that's "wrong with games". Just like you don't make jellybeans better by filling 80% of the bag with crappy jellybeans.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Or is this yet another attempt to paint those who disagree as terrible people? If we do not agree with your idea of fun, we all must be horribly masochistic?
VG
As for gear it can work in games like SWG or EVE... where commerce is a true play-style to be undertook. Yet in games based on gear grinds, it would be nonsensical.
Almost all games punish you in regard to time. Make it all the way to the boss of the dungeon but died? Sorry you wasted your time, try again...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The required penalty for failure is a fight reset. If you fail, you die* and must do the fight over. This lets players practice and improve, which is where the fun of gaming is most commonly experienced.
Penalty beyond that is excess. It's purposeless punishment. Masochism.
*It's worth pointing out that character death is not the only type of failure. There is always a passive skill-check in terms of how fast and efficiently you kill mobs, which is also rewarded (a skilled player in these games can kill mobs twice as fast or faster than an unskilled one, and will end up with that much more rewards too.) This is why games can remain interesting even when character death is very rare, because there is always a dynamic skill challenge being experienced at all times.
There are varying degrees of masochism, and all I've pointed out is that deliberately designing things crappy (like this death penalty example) is masochistic. It's bad, and there's no reason it should be bad. So it's masochistic. I didn't take it to the extreme like you did by labeling it "horribly masochistic". That's your extremism.
Also I'm not using the term to call people terrible. Some of my best friends are masochists!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's not a decision, it's just something that happens to you.
It's bad because it discourages interesting decisions. You avoid tough encounters when you know the game will kick you in the groin for failing.
As a result, you experience fewer interesting decisions because you're avoiding the game's toughest challenges where those decisions are at their most interesting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Right. "Almost never" wasn't a combination of words I used randomly.
Although it's probably worth mentioning WOW doesn't really have the right form of difficulty selection. It's far more common to work through the difficulty levels as a type of progression, rather than to select one based on your guild's skill level.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So no xp loss, long leveling curves, and even instant death traps were not game mechanics invented just to make people subscribe longer because they existed before EQ in free MUDs that EQ took inspiration from.
These mechanics were not in place to get more money in MUDs they were there as fail states that the player needed to be aware of and consider and extended progression purely for the sake of progression.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The more likely truth is that there are players with different opinions and tolerances to fun, difficulty and challenge. Developers in this genre will not risk upsetting the botttomline. More players are tolerant to being unchallenged than those they may lose with challenge threshold higher.
This genre gets away with a lot because of familiarity with traditional rites of passage. Many players view quest grinding to be the only format for players progression whether it's truly fun or not. It's just how it's done. My opinion of course.
(In light-penalty games you still learn that standing in the fire gets you wiped. If you don't, you keep wiping. The game doesn't also kick you in the groin for wiping, but neither does it award you victory. You'll keep wiping until you learn to do it right.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver