For me, it's a combination of things. A social experience, a feeling of progression, a challenge, and dynamicism that keeps the gameplay from getting dry. That means an expansive and challenging array of endgame content and a reason to keep doing it beyond endless farming.
It depends on the game, and how many you've played before...
With Lineage (1) for me it was all "Wow, look at all the people I'm playing with! From all over the world! And this game's world is so big too!" - All pretty much things that wouldn't impress me anymore nowadays.
UO was amazing for the freedom it gave in character creation, and all the crafting skills. Not to mention the taming.
CoH's character customization, both visual and when it came to power sets (specs/abilities if you will) was awesome. Not to mention it was a superhero MMO. Flying. Running around with super speed. Teleporting. Phasing to become impervious to harm for a while. So much cool stuff.
SWTOR and TSW were both incredible experiences in story. I've also enjoyed the gameplay, and the customization to a lesser extent. SWTOR's Legacy system is also something I enjoy. It's nice to have some account wide progress. A shame it kinda got neglected after a while, and they started adding all that character specific crap as money sinks.
BDO's world and those drop dead gorgeous weather effects, along with the contribution and worker system that let me create a huge trade/crafting empire.
With the exception of BDO, the one thing that drove all these games to going beyond just another MMO was the development of the communities around them. Community development and communication is key to having that "magic".
I think that the most important factor is a dedicated development team, that wants to create a good game, has the right ideas and the necessary funding. If the aim is just to create another generic moneygrab nonsense, then of course it will be bs. But if the team wants to create something good, and has the funding, skills and time to do so, then the chances are good that they will succeed.
The magic from a gamer perspective has more to do with the game feel rather than as simply gameplay decisions or a feature list. Those things can lead to the right feel/mood the game tries to convey but as a poster said, is much more about an art of bringing everything together. The best examples I see in games are when the art, story, sounds, and music all harmonize and instantly transport you to that world.
From the developer side, it's about cohesion. When a vision is maintained throughout development and every major pillar they set out to do is delivered on. For big hits, originality plays into it a lot. Not necessarily "doing it first" but "nailing it first". Being the trend setter instead of the follower.
So what game brought the magic for you? What does a game have to have to create a magical experience for you? What game(s) coming out do you think may, perhaps have that magic?
There are many different things a game has to do to be considered magical for me. I kinda go through steps when playing a game
1) The IP "WOW" factor
A lot of games open with a cinematic trailer or some sort of tutorial. This is the games first chance to impress me. I've got to want to play in this world for me to consider the game having that magic touch. This is why I love high fantasy RPGs - its such a big departure from real life that it can really impress me.
The final fantasy games are excellent at this. They always show some cool places, interesting technology, interesting characters etc. I always end up wanting to explore their worlds.
2) The story
I'm not a fan of stories in games, I don't think they're the right way to do it. Interactivity and player freedom oppose good story telling. Never the less, the occasional game comes up with a storyline that I can get into. The best ones do it through minimal story telling: they generally set something generic up and then let me "explore" that story in my own way.
FF7 was great at this - each character would only say 7 or 8 words at a time, so you only got the barebones of the story before you went off exploring. FF13, on the other hand, had endless cutscenes with tons of crap dialogue which really detracted from the game.
3) Minute-to-minute gameplay
It can take a while to really get to grips with the gameplay, but it has to be fun right from the start. Does it look good? Do i get good feedback for doing well / poorly? Can I play the game in different ways?
Wildstar is a bad example of this. With all the telegraphs, flashy effects and big numbers, the minute to minute gameplay sucked. Couldn't really tell whether I was doing good or not, didn't feel like I had much skill or different ways to play. Just felt like button mashing. Something like Cities: Skylines, on the other hand, was great. You're immediately allowed to be creative but within narrow parameters so you can't mess up too much and you get constant feedback through city growth, traffic jams, happiness levels etc.
4) Depth
How many different ways are there to play the same game? The same character? The same boss fight? This is the most important factor for me when it comes to "magic". Without depth, there is no lasting appeal, its just a one-hit-wonder.
LotRO is a great game for depth. Each class was vastly different from one another. Each class could be specced multiple ways. Each group could contain a wide variety of classes. Each boss had multiple viable tactics. It kept the game interesting well after I'd cleared all the content.
SW:TOR is a bad example for depth. You basically played melee, ranged or healer, but each variation pretty much played the same way. Same simple rotations, same tactics, same group formations, just different visual effects.
5) Fluff
No matter how good a game is, sometimes you're just not in the mood for the main activity, be it questing, combat, city building, racing, whatever. This is where the fluff comes in. Something fun to do outside the main activities.
The GTA games are good examples of this. Car customisation, collecting properties, gang warfare, dating girlfriends.....all fun and interesting side activities. Final Fantasy games are also good at this with things like chocobo breeding, card games etc.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
This example isnt the 'only' thing that answers the OP but its something that came to mind given my experience just yesterday that left me thinking these devs know what they are doing.
(so please understand before replying this is NOT the only thing and its NOt a requirement its just an example)
So I played this VR game in which you move things with your mind (in game but controller in real life). It was a series of puzzels. However, from the very start you could move things completely unrelated to the puzzle or story basically non-nonsensical items. In fact I was able to take some of these items into multiple rooms and it still did not 'break the game'. At one point I had so much stuff in my elevator it was hard to move around.
Point? control. If a developer is willing to release control of outcome and let the gamer player as they see fit it usually means the developer is on to something. Its not uncommon for me to make that my first test, will the developer allow me to do something in the game that doesnt have context to the objective. if so then the developer understands the subject of 'control'
Another VR game I played (EvE Valkrie) was unbearable. I could not do anything other that exactly what I was supposed to do and I had to sit and listen to her blabber on about something I didnt give a shit about, again, control
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This comes down to personal preference again. Something might offend someone and another likes the same thing. I think it's harder to hit that magic as you get over because you already hit that magic before and have ideas of what is magical. It's likely you won't find a game that's different magical. Recently I found that Uncharted 4 had some magical moments in terms of making you feel like you were in the game. I especially like when they go back to Nate's childhood that is during what appears to be the 60s. I also get this feeling at times in the Witcher 3 and it's usually brought on by a combination of scenery and music that makes you feel lost in the world. That can easily be broken by GPS navigation system and massive amounts of looting every five seconds though IMO. I remember wandering around Everquest and feeling immersed. A lot of that was the music and art style. It's difficult to get that feeling you are in the game today because they are always popping up User Interface items between inventory management, tutorials, and GPS.
It's just like art. Some people may see a masterpiece while others see trash.
You can't please all the people. It's impossible.
But art has been quantified in many ways, such as which colors work together. There are many such 'rules of art'. The more of those rules an artist understands the more successful their art can potentially be (though they still have to be skilled at executing those rules.)
This doesn't mean there's never a time where it makes sense to break from complimentary colors. There are times where it makes sense, but if you're entirely unaware of the rule you're going to break it accidentally which will nearly always be worse than when you break it deliberately with artful intent. (Granted even when you break it with intent it can cause people to dislike your art.)
Art which is widely considered great doesn't please all the people, but we can still say it's widely considered great. The 'rules' of art are about the elements which consistently result in things people enjoy.
The rules of game design are things people consistently enjoy too. Knowing them and employing them in game design will result in objectively more successful games.
"All the people" is just a fallacious thing to bring up. If presidential candidates worried about whether all the people voted for them, nobody would run.
Post edited by Axehilt on
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"The rules of game design are things people consistently enjoy too. Knowing them and employing them in game design will result in objectively more successful games."
That really doesn't narrow things down much. The manner and type of games people enjoy is so far-flung that saying there's a finite set of rules is a little pointless. Much like art which if you even only look at the most renowned individuals sees a remarkable variety from realism and classical design into modern-art that turns most all of it on it's head (not to mention the variety of art in terms of painting, digital, music, sculpture, etc.
Are there principles to understanding them? Yes. Are there finite rules one must obey in some cookie-cutter fashion to hammer out successes? Not so much
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's just like art. Some people may see a masterpiece while others see trash.
You can't please all the people. It's impossible.
But art has been quantified in many ways, such as complimentary colors. There are many such 'rules of art'. The more of those rules an artist understands the more successful their art can potentially be (though they still have to be skilled at executing those rules.)
This doesn't mean there's never a time where it makes sense to break from complimentary colors. There are times where it makes sense, but if you're entirely unaware of the rule you're going to break it accidentally which will nearly always be worse than when you break it deliberately with artful intent. (Granted even when you break it with intent it can cause people to dislike your art.)
Art which is widely considered great doesn't please all the people, but we can still say it's widely considered great. The 'rules' of art are about the elements which consistently result in things people enjoy.
The rules of game design are things people consistently enjoy too. Knowing them and employing them in game design will result in objectively more successful games.
"All the people" is just a fallacious thing to bring up. If presidential candidates worried about whether all the people voted for them, nobody would run.
Complementary colors cancel each other out.
Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
1 bring players together,NOT against each other like pvp games do nor SOLO which makes the genre of a MMO a farce.
2 Bring more to the CHARACTER/CLASS.NO that does not mean JUST a bunch of sliders before the game begins.Almost ALL games are NOT about your character,they are about completing a bunch of linear quests ,you don't even need to be good or have any special character at all to do linear questing.
That is why i lol@ that other thread asking people the best game classes and people pick or mentioned games where you play SOLO and could be a CRAP class and crap player and still get end game with no trouble at all.
Cover those two bases and you already have a great start.There are still several other areas that have yet to be addressed by ANY developer,so there is still TONS of room to improve the genre.Too bad we don't have anyone willing to do it or capable of doing it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
My favorite MMO is EQ2. Always has been. Everything from the music to the graphics just says "incredibly relaxing" no matter what I'm doing. I still feel that flutter of excitement whenever the music from Frostfell plays. I don't like how the toons look but since I don't spend much time looking at anyones faces, I could care less. I always play in the third person anyway.
For an RPG... KOTOR, KOTOR 2, VTM Bloodlines, Dragon Age series, Mass Effect series, the Witcher series... those are the ones that come to mind at this very second. All of them have been revolutionary for their time. They were interesting, and involving. They made you feel as though you are part of the story and that your choices matter.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
They show colors that work well together. They do use the word complementary.
Using the word complementary doesn't change the mechanics of how complementary colors work (opposing colors that when used together or combined either neutralize each other, or in the case of RGB produces white.
Nor does that change that the tangent escapes the point that quantifying the discrete mechanics that makes one piece of art work does not mean you can apply that to every piece of art and see positive or even remotely the same results.
To which the same point applies on gaming. The pointlessly vague concept of "engaging content" is a rule by which reality exists and is a phrase that has the same value as saying "fun things are fun". It does not give any kind of honing or definition of the content that is supposedly engaging, and we instead have to do what we'd do without such a phrase and look across a massive spectrum of differing mechanics to pick out and assemble a concept that works cohesively.
All these different elements have their own sets of rules, and they don't always play well together for it. You can make any mix of many things as a result and you can defy many conventions yet still produce a popular piece of art or game, just as you can follow every step of a paint by numbers and end up with something absolutely forgettable.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
They show colors that work well together. They do use the word complementary.
Using the word complementary doesn't change the mechanics of how complementary colors work (opposing colors that when used together or combined either neutralize each other, or in the case of RGB produces white.
Nor does that change that the tangent escapes the point that quantifying the discrete mechanics that makes one piece of art work does not mean you can apply that to every piece of art and see positive or even remotely the same results.
To which the same point applies on gaming. The pointlessly vague concept of "engaging content" is a rule by which reality exists and is a phrase that has the same value as saying "fun things are fun". It does not give any kind of honing or definition of the content that is supposedly engaging, and we instead have to do what we'd do without such a phrase and look across a massive spectrum of differing mechanics to pick out and assemble a concept that works cohesively.
All these different elements have their own sets of rules, and they don't always play well together for it. You can make any mix of many things as a result and you can defy many conventions yet still produce a popular piece of art or game, just as you can follow every step of a paint by numbers and end up with something absolutely forgettable.
That is for light. Paint works another way. But you failed to point that out.
Well people do say too many non-specifics which is why I ask for clarification a bit too often. Saying engaging content is meaningless. Saying I find this specific thing engaging because of these reasons is better but might not be complete.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
They show colors that work well together. They do use the word complementary.
Using the word complementary doesn't change the mechanics of how complementary colors work (opposing colors that when used together or combined either neutralize each other, or in the case of RGB produces white.
Nor does that change that the tangent escapes the point that quantifying the discrete mechanics that makes one piece of art work does not mean you can apply that to every piece of art and see positive or even remotely the same results.
To which the same point applies on gaming. The pointlessly vague concept of "engaging content" is a rule by which reality exists and is a phrase that has the same value as saying "fun things are fun". It does not give any kind of honing or definition of the content that is supposedly engaging, and we instead have to do what we'd do without such a phrase and look across a massive spectrum of differing mechanics to pick out and assemble a concept that works cohesively.
All these different elements have their own sets of rules, and they don't always play well together for it. You can make any mix of many things as a result and you can defy many conventions yet still produce a popular piece of art or game, just as you can follow every step of a paint by numbers and end up with something absolutely forgettable.
That is for light. Paint works another way. But you failed to point that out.
Well people do say too many non-specifics which is why I ask for clarification a bit too often. Saying engaging content is meaningless. Saying I find this specific thing engaging because of these reasons is better but might not be complete.
Actually I did point that out if you read this part of my post;
"...opposing colors that when used together or combined either neutralize each other, or in the case of RGB produces white..."
That actually covers first the effect it has with CMYK (ink, but same principle applies to acrylics and oil paints) and the second part I specifically qualify as the alternative applying to light (RGB). If you blend complimentary colors in CMYK the results are that everything becomes increasingly muddied until you eventually get black (IE, they neutralize each other). The same principle applies with light in RGB, save it goes the opposite direction of the color spectrum blending into white (IE, they neutralize each other).
So, please don't say such dishonest things.
And the latter is rather the point. The entire analogy about art has been a rather pointless tangent as it's arguing about "rules" applying at such a broad scope as to not serve any function in defining how something is actually constructed to exemplify it's given qualities.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If a 1000 different people post detailed lists of features in this thread, you will have 1000 different sets of reasons. There will be commonalities and some overlaps, and the more general the descriptions, the more it will seem that you can distil a list of "winning features".
But it's an illusion.
People respond to games as much with emotion as they do with reason. The "magic" in a game is the way that the game makes you FEEL. And that is a purely emotional response.
Listing technical reasons like features gives you a basis for comparison, but it certainly won't tell you if you'll "like" that game or if you'll find it "fun".
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
A game may have every single feature that you love, yet you may find it totally bland and boring because of the way those features are implemented.
Those 1000 different posts are what I would like to read and why I made the post. Because you are right the 'magic' in a game is a very personal thing. I find it fascinating to read what others find 'magical' or what game had/has that 'it' factor and if they can say why, that /those games had 'it'
For me, the magic is found in the small things that a game gives a player the freedom to do, from being able to use otherwise useless loot items to create atmosphere(ie. http://uohomedecor.com/furniture-2/fauns-strumpet-love-bed/ ) to giving players the freedom to write their own little novels, publish and then distribute them ingame and have them actually become part of the game so others can read them, to building libraries( http://www.uoguide.com/Atlantic:Winterbreeze_Library ), to having the control over containers/merchants in your own house(either preset or built tile by tile, sometimes very haphazardly...) that you can set to give, sell, display, or lock from view its contents. Then the little "fun" things like finding treasure maps that you can actually search out and dig for treasure(booby traps and all) to chess/checkers/dart games that you can actually play ingame with other players along with many other shared memories( ie. playing with Lord British). These small examples, accompanied by tunes that still resonate with me, are the kind of things that still bring back magic memories that will last a lifetime.
Comments
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
From the developer side, it's about cohesion. When a vision is maintained throughout development and every major pillar they set out to do is delivered on. For big hits, originality plays into it a lot. Not necessarily "doing it first" but "nailing it first". Being the trend setter instead of the follower.
1) The IP "WOW" factor
A lot of games open with a cinematic trailer or some sort of tutorial. This is the games first chance to impress me. I've got to want to play in this world for me to consider the game having that magic touch. This is why I love high fantasy RPGs - its such a big departure from real life that it can really impress me.
The final fantasy games are excellent at this. They always show some cool places, interesting technology, interesting characters etc. I always end up wanting to explore their worlds.
2) The story
I'm not a fan of stories in games, I don't think they're the right way to do it. Interactivity and player freedom oppose good story telling. Never the less, the occasional game comes up with a storyline that I can get into. The best ones do it through minimal story telling: they generally set something generic up and then let me "explore" that story in my own way.
FF7 was great at this - each character would only say 7 or 8 words at a time, so you only got the barebones of the story before you went off exploring. FF13, on the other hand, had endless cutscenes with tons of crap dialogue which really detracted from the game.
3) Minute-to-minute gameplay
It can take a while to really get to grips with the gameplay, but it has to be fun right from the start. Does it look good? Do i get good feedback for doing well / poorly? Can I play the game in different ways?
Wildstar is a bad example of this. With all the telegraphs, flashy effects and big numbers, the minute to minute gameplay sucked. Couldn't really tell whether I was doing good or not, didn't feel like I had much skill or different ways to play. Just felt like button mashing. Something like Cities: Skylines, on the other hand, was great. You're immediately allowed to be creative but within narrow parameters so you can't mess up too much and you get constant feedback through city growth, traffic jams, happiness levels etc.
4) Depth
How many different ways are there to play the same game? The same character? The same boss fight? This is the most important factor for me when it comes to "magic". Without depth, there is no lasting appeal, its just a one-hit-wonder.
LotRO is a great game for depth. Each class was vastly different from one another. Each class could be specced multiple ways. Each group could contain a wide variety of classes. Each boss had multiple viable tactics. It kept the game interesting well after I'd cleared all the content.
SW:TOR is a bad example for depth. You basically played melee, ranged or healer, but each variation pretty much played the same way. Same simple rotations, same tactics, same group formations, just different visual effects.
5) Fluff
No matter how good a game is, sometimes you're just not in the mood for the main activity, be it questing, combat, city building, racing, whatever. This is where the fluff comes in. Something fun to do outside the main activities.
The GTA games are good examples of this. Car customisation, collecting properties, gang warfare, dating girlfriends.....all fun and interesting side activities. Final Fantasy games are also good at this with things like chocobo breeding, card games etc.
(so please understand before replying this is NOT the only thing and its NOt a requirement its just an example)
So I played this VR game in which you move things with your mind (in game but controller in real life). It was a series of puzzels. However, from the very start you could move things completely unrelated to the puzzle or story basically non-nonsensical items. In fact I was able to take some of these items into multiple rooms and it still did not 'break the game'. At one point I had so much stuff in my elevator it was hard to move around.
Point? control. If a developer is willing to release control of outcome and let the gamer player as they see fit it usually means the developer is on to something. Its not uncommon for me to make that my first test, will the developer allow me to do something in the game that doesnt have context to the objective. if so then the developer understands the subject of 'control'
Another VR game I played (EvE Valkrie) was unbearable. I could not do anything other that exactly what I was supposed to do and I had to sit and listen to her blabber on about something I didnt give a shit about, again, control
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's just like art. Some people may see a masterpiece while others see trash.
You can't please all the people. It's impossible.
This doesn't mean there's never a time where it makes sense to break from complimentary colors. There are times where it makes sense, but if you're entirely unaware of the rule you're going to break it accidentally which will nearly always be worse than when you break it deliberately with artful intent. (Granted even when you break it with intent it can cause people to dislike your art.)
Art which is widely considered great doesn't please all the people, but we can still say it's widely considered great. The 'rules' of art are about the elements which consistently result in things people enjoy.
The rules of game design are things people consistently enjoy too. Knowing them and employing them in game design will result in objectively more successful games.
"All the people" is just a fallacious thing to bring up. If presidential candidates worried about whether all the people voted for them, nobody would run.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That really doesn't narrow things down much. The manner and type of games people enjoy is so far-flung that saying there's a finite set of rules is a little pointless. Much like art which if you even only look at the most renowned individuals sees a remarkable variety from realism and classical design into modern-art that turns most all of it on it's head (not to mention the variety of art in terms of painting, digital, music, sculpture, etc.
Are there principles to understanding them? Yes. Are there finite rules one must obey in some cookie-cutter fashion to hammer out successes? Not so much
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Complementary colors cancel each other out.
There is two parts...
1 bring players together,NOT against each other like pvp games do nor SOLO which makes the genre of a MMO a farce.
2 Bring more to the CHARACTER/CLASS.NO that does not mean JUST a bunch of sliders before the game begins.Almost ALL games are NOT about your character,they are about completing a bunch of linear quests ,you don't even need to be good or have any special character at all to do linear questing.
That is why i lol@ that other thread asking people the best game classes and people pick or mentioned games where you play SOLO and could be a CRAP class and crap player and still get end game with no trouble at all.
Cover those two bases and you already have a great start.There are still several other areas that have yet to be addressed by ANY developer,so there is still TONS of room to improve the genre.Too bad we don't have anyone willing to do it or capable of doing it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
For an RPG... KOTOR, KOTOR 2, VTM Bloodlines, Dragon Age series, Mass Effect series, the Witcher series... those are the ones that come to mind at this very second. All of them have been revolutionary for their time. They were interesting, and involving. They made you feel as though you are part of the story and that your choices matter.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To support your original complementary colors is this: http://www.colorhexa.com/ccccff
They show colors that work well together. They do use the word complementary.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Nor does that change that the tangent escapes the point that quantifying the discrete mechanics that makes one piece of art work does not mean you can apply that to every piece of art and see positive or even remotely the same results.
To which the same point applies on gaming. The pointlessly vague concept of "engaging content" is a rule by which reality exists and is a phrase that has the same value as saying "fun things are fun". It does not give any kind of honing or definition of the content that is supposedly engaging, and we instead have to do what we'd do without such a phrase and look across a massive spectrum of differing mechanics to pick out and assemble a concept that works cohesively.
All these different elements have their own sets of rules, and they don't always play well together for it. You can make any mix of many things as a result and you can defy many conventions yet still produce a popular piece of art or game, just as you can follow every step of a paint by numbers and end up with something absolutely forgettable.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
That is for light. Paint works another way. But you failed to point that out.
Well people do say too many non-specifics which is why I ask for clarification a bit too often. Saying engaging content is meaningless. Saying I find this specific thing engaging because of these reasons is better but might not be complete.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
"...opposing colors that when used together or combined either neutralize each other, or in the case of RGB produces white..."
That actually covers first the effect it has with CMYK (ink, but same principle applies to acrylics and oil paints) and the second part I specifically qualify as the alternative applying to light (RGB). If you blend complimentary colors in CMYK the results are that everything becomes increasingly muddied until you eventually get black (IE, they neutralize each other). The same principle applies with light in RGB, save it goes the opposite direction of the color spectrum blending into white (IE, they neutralize each other).
So, please don't say such dishonest things.
And the latter is rather the point. The entire analogy about art has been a rather pointless tangent as it's arguing about "rules" applying at such a broad scope as to not serve any function in defining how something is actually constructed to exemplify it's given qualities.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
When you don't want the truth, you will make up your own truth.