I don't understand how the title of this thread can even be argued when it is an obvious fact that it is untrue. Maybe you should have changed the wording to be -
Logical argument why to be continually fun for me, a MMORPG must be PVP based
The fact that many people enjoy non pvp mmorpgs for many many years pretty much makes this a moot point.
I think Harafnir from just above is right, its a pvper psychological disorder that makes them think because its fun for them that everyone else is lying about what they do or don't like or fooling themselves.
Originally posted by drydale Ahem, there is a assumption in PVP you can be killed, which is not fun (though it could be), which is a loss or you can kill another, which is fun (though it may not be) and is therefor a win. In fact, isn't the choice in PVP really that between losing and delayed losing? If you die by another player, let us consider that for the moment undesirable. However if you defeat another player, in most PVP games, you don't profit by it. If you don't enjoy the failure of others, then there can be said to be no reward. Just a quick thought I had... though if you want to know, I really enjoy team PVP, which has a completely different mindset to it then full PVP. Wish I had thought the above more carefully and explained better, but hopefully you get the gist.
Actually I don't know of any pvp where there is any death involved. Certainly not of the actual players, and I know of hardly any where the character permanently dies. You call it death but your character respawns and only suffers minor setbacks.
This argument is the same as calling losing in a game of basketball death and then yelling at someone for winning a 1 on 1 saying "OH MY GOD YOU BASTARD YOU KILLED HIM!!!"
There is no person that hates all form of competition. Keep in mind that even talking is competition in the sense that only one person can be the funniest that is being laughed at for any one second...
Originally posted by geld The author of this post is completely incorrect in his definition of fun. The word fun is not universal, and so you cannot state that anything is fun and be correct. ie: Playing basketball is fun. Killing other players on online RPGs is fun Playing hopscotch is fun Gambling is fun All of these statements are completely INCORRECT unless you read them like this: Playing basketball is fun for me. Killing other players on online RPGs is fun for me. Playing hopscotch is fun for me. Gambling is fun for me. Therefore the author is stating that PVP is required for an online RPG to be continuously fun FOR HIM! Which is only an opinion, and not a statement of fact. He should not have used the word fun, at all. Rather he should have used "generally more popular", or something similar. Implying that his conclusion applies to OTHER PEOPLE is COMPLETELY wrong.
Geld first of all I don't care if the definition of fun I use in my argument does not match what is in the dictionary. There is no logical rhyme or reason to the definitions in the dictionary. Note that many other feelings do have universal definitions, as pain is defined as caused by injury etc... The only reason fun is any different is because it is often in peoples interests (or so they believe) to hide the actual things they are feeling. Its much less likely but still possible for people to TRY and do the same thing with something so widely KNOWN to be universal as say pain. Someone can be like yeah I'm such a bad ass it doesn't even hurt when I burn my hand off. Everyone knows in this case that the dude is really hurting like hell regardless of weather he tries to hide it or not because that pain is common to ALL people. But somehow when fun is the feeling in question then people can make up whatever they want about it and its ok because its not known by 98% of people what causes the feelings behind fun...
Well guess what, certain things cause feelings that could be called fun in ALL people (namely things like realization and love/respect which might be the same chemically and things like adrenaline rushes etc) and mmorpgs deal with these things on such a basic level that they cannot be interpreted differently by different personality types.
All of those statements are things that people might decide aren't the BEST ways to have fun, but if a person chooses to do any of them then we can know by understanding how people work WHAT things about it is fun to them.
You are basically trying to beat the audience here into the submission of believing that fun is totally subjective without breaking it down into something that would make sense to anyone who might doubt your argument. You can't break it down because the argument is bogus and doesn't make sense to anyone who doesnt misunderstand what I mean by fun. If something which to you seems like a self explaining truth is not so to others then it is useless without further understanding of why it is true because it does not make sense to anyone but you. If you would take the two seconds to realize what I mean by fun you would realize I was right...
Originally posted by bsherlock I am speaking from the viewpoint of a person who does not like PvP. I am reading about PvP'ers saying that they enjoy PvP on games which require skill and not uberness, but thats not what MMORPG's are about. on a RPG you can get Uber, if you want a game where you are on equal footing then go and play quake or CS. on a roleplaying game characters advance and have different skills, and personal skill is and should be less of an issue. if i am 5 levels above you, or have a better sword then i should beat you, because thats how RPG's should be.
Muahahahahahahaha
Um I don't think "roleplaying" as in playing a role has anything to do with combat being stat only based. Just because back in the day of the garage gamer geeks it couldn't be anyother way doesn't mean that it has to stay that way in the computer age in order to be a "role playing game". Anyways more importantly the argument clearly shows that stat only based games cannot be fun without break.
Originally posted by Harafnir One question. Is this some graduation thingy? Some test that all PvPers have to go throguh to be called PvPers? Because in any forum, in any game, about anything and 3.000 times a month, some pvpers write exactly this post about exaxtly the same thing, with exactly the same flame of other players and the same flawed logic, without the same lack of grasp of reality. It is getting REALLY old and I just wish one day, some PvPer coudl step up to the plate with at least some knowledge or even grasp of reality. PvP is great fun, if done right.. it is a disaster if done wrong. get that through your heads... If a game wants to make money, they have to do things extremly right not to scare away their audience. WW2OL did things very right! Huge PvP environment! Why not so many people play that game? Is PvP lacking..? no.... Not in any way. It is the most wonderful PvP! or Shadowbane a team of old school Everquesters make a full blown pvP game!! Planetside!! Boom bomm, Sci Fi PvP galore!! So why is those games not the biggest on the market? Because not even PvPers care that much about PvP when it comes down to it, if the game system and the game graphics and all the other parts are not done right! They are even more important than the so old dead horse PvP. Ok..? Get that...? Grasp it, understand it, love it. Please.... Can I once see one PvPer with brains attached, that can write something original instead of cut and paste this stupid post somewhere for the umpteenth time, then there could be a sensible discussion. As long as this onesided crap with flames sent in all directions and assumptions not based in reality, then the whole subject is just a flame fest without getting anywhere.. and PvPers will still have to wait for a good game.. Since they can not, even under gunpoint, give any good, sensible feedback above "PvP roxxors".
This is obviously one of those propaganda posts where the guy didn't even read the argument at the beginning of the thread before trying to dupe any new reader just looking at his post into thinking the thread isn't what it is...
Funny I have played most of the hardcore pvp based games and never seen this argument before. Usually on all those boards I was the one making the most thought out arguments for why pvp is very important...
So the whole basis for your immature rant is that "pvp is good if done right, bad if done wrong" Nevermind that this is in the argument already... (which you obviously didn't read) All of the games which you refer too have huge flaws which are pointed out as problems in my argument. Shadowbane is too limiting in player choices of actions, pvp can happen too unexpectedly, and it can be forced on people who wouldn't want to otherwise. Planetside is just a pure fps, these games get old fast because there is nothing a player can do to get a better chance of gaining recognition in the game. Right away the player knows if he is the best and if not he probably never can be and probably will never get respect and so the game gets boring.
You wonder into a logical discussion thread and without even reading the argument in question start spouting that PVPERS have no grasp of reality and can't respond to arguments with any more than "pvp roxxors" Thats pretty ironic...
Originally posted by Misti I don't understand how the title of this thread can even be argued when it is an obvious fact that it is untrue. Maybe you should have changed the wording to be - Logical argument why to be continually fun for me, a MMORPG must be PVP based The fact that many people enjoy non pvp mmorpgs for many many years pretty much makes this a moot point. I think Harafnir from just above is right, its a pvper psychological disorder that makes them think because its fun for them that everyone else is lying about what they do or don't like or fooling themselves.
Because its only "obviously untrue" to people who have not studied any psychology or thought about the way people act. Peoples feelings are caused by the same basic causes. People's personalities can cause them to interpret things slightly differently or in different order but they cannot change the emotional responses to the same basic things like physical harm or being respected etc.
The reason once again why people like you are wrong when you say that "I don't like any type of pvp" is because you don't even know what you are talking about when you say pvp. You have pvp forceably defined as being ganked by higher level players or something similar when this need not have anything to do with pvp. Fighting mobs is a form of pvp and the only difference is that you win much more often...
Continually fun here means that it is fun without break. So no, the fact that people have played pve mmorpgs before doesn't contradict the argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
You can over analyze it till the cows come home but it will still remain true that many people do not like pvp and even for many of those that do they can continually enjoy non pvp games as well.
As for knowing what pvp is I would have to argue that you seem to be the one with a lack of understanding as fighting a computer controlled opponent (monster as you indicated) is indeed not pvp (person versus person) combat.
If your likening all human created content to be a challenge against another person then your well outside the bounds of the definition of pvp than most people here are arguing. Even with that broad definition there are plenty of human vs environment things that keep people happy for an ongoing basis with no human involvment or design.
I have play pvp games and do enjoy some to an extent. Of course I am not talking about being griefed by high level players or anything, almost everyone hates that. I am playing Lineage II which is definately a pvp game. Ive played Shadowbane, DAoC and other pvp style things but what you cant seem to grasp is that I still enjoy the pve elements more then the pvp even when the pvp works out perfectly with equal level characters in a balanced environment.
I simply dont get a great deal of enjoyment out of killing other people in a game. I think its more fun to meet people and work with them to overcome other challenges, or god forbid to actually roleplay a little in these roleplay games.
Even if by some amazing power you posses you somehow know the innerworkings of my mind better then I do (which you clearly dont from your post) you still cant argue that I have been continually entertained by non pvp mmorpgs. I have spent years and years playing EQ and I was generally thrilled most of the time I was playing.
Its great that you enjoy pvp but you really need to realize that there are many many people that do not thrive on the same thing. Wanting more pvp games for yourself is understandable but trying to force everyone else to play it or telilng them they dont know what they want isnt clear logical thinking.
I'm not sure what the author intended to accomplish by this topic (yes, I did read the intial thesis and argument for PvP). It seems like it was intended for either of two things:
A troll thread. If this is the case, the author has succeeded as the number of replies is over 250.
Showing dissatisfaction with the current choices of MMORPG's and how one may go about by designing a new MMORPG or by altering an existing MMORPG to increase satisfaction. This satisfaction is a subjective matter and not an objective matter. Therefore, it should not be argued as such.
I would like to discuss the second case. I believe the dissatisfaction comes from gameplay boredom and that the majority of MMORPG's all have the same basic gameplay. That is why majority of people always claim that their first MMORPG would be their favorite. When they were first introduced to MMORPG's, they did not have that boredom because everything was new. When things started to get old, they decided to try other MMORPG's and realized they were getting bored with the new one much quicker than they did their original. This is because the basic gameplay was the same even if the content was different.
So, to combat boredom, some people lean towards PvP because each PvP encounter has a sort of randomness and unpredictability that a game object (e.g. NPC) usually does not have. So, it's conceivable that someone would come up with the argument that PvP does extend the life (continually be fun?) of a MMORPG just as much or more than other means, such as introducing new content.
This argument is subjective though, as stated previously. People may like a certain MMORPG for other reasons than the gameplay. This seems counterintuitive because in other genres of games, gameplay is the key factor for the success of those games. This is not so for MMORPG's. But, to argue this point, we need to know what other reasons besides gameplay that someone might be attracted to a MMORPG.
Here's how I would classify the basic types of MMORPG players (note that people are usually a combination of more than one of these types):
Single player (aka Loner) - Plays the game as if it were any other single player game. There may be different reasons behind this such as not wanting to wait on others to group up to accomplish a mission.
Co-op players - Get together with one or more friends to accomplish goals in the game.
Competitors (a form of PvP) - Engage in competition with others one-on-one or teams.
Griefers - Enjoy decreasing the enjoyment of others.
Levelers - Concerned about the development of their characters' abilities.
Economists - Enjoy trading, buying, and selling possesions in the game.
Builders - Enjoy building and creating objects in the game.
Socialites - Enjoy chatting and/or meeting other people.
Actors (aka role-players) - Pretend to be actually in the game and/or another person.
Even though gameplay somewhat affects all of these players, I would argue that gameplay boredom only directly affects the single-player, co-op players, and competitors, and the others are indirectly effected (usually because people are a combination with one of the first three types). Because of this, people who are mainly economists, builders, socialites, or actors won't agree that PvP is an integral part of the life (continually to be fun) of the MMORPG.
I believe the main problem can be the comparison of MMORPG's to games from other genres. Other genres try to polish their gameplay by simplifying it to attract a certain type of player who will be their core-base. MMORPG developers for some reason seems to think that they need to attract all the different types of people I mentioned above (except for the griefer). For this reason, I think the gameplay doesn't seem to be as polished in MMORPG's compared to other games. Planetside did try to opt to just appeal to the competitors and not to economists, builders, and roleplayers. But it has too much of a FPS feel than a MMORPG feel to it, therefore it alienated PvP'rs who still love the other aspects of other MMORPG's. Sims went to cater to the socialites, actors, and builders, yet, doesn't have a feel of a game.
I like seeing developers get away from the standard gameplay that usually imitates EQ, but the very few options (e.g. Planetside and Sims) get too far away from the core of what some people call a true MMORPG. EQ was very successful and because of this, many games that try to imitate that gameplay will usually get funded before a game that will try to come up with new gameplay options. I wish that developers will realize that you do not need to cater to all the different types of players that I mentioned to have a successful game. There are niches that can be filled. This thread should show that there are people who believe that a MMORPG centered around PvP interaction (but not like Planetside) can fill a niche that hasn't been filled yet.
I personally want to see a game where NPC's are very limited and where most of the interaction (combat, economy, missions, etc) are driven by players and not the content or features of the game.
Before people start bashing and flaming one another because of how they think a MMORPG should be, look at what kind of players are attracted to the game and understand that they would like to see their style of play emphasized a little more than the others. Just because this is subjective, doesn't mean it's not important or not useful. You can still use subjective matter in an objective way to find a solution to a problem. It's just that you can't argue against subjective matter because of it's nature (there's no right or wrong amongst opinions).
I just wanna give a toast to Kriminal for the hours he must have spent on this post, I admire ur ideas and arguments. Im right with you dude. I hope this post goes on forever....
Originally posted by Misti You can over analyze it till the cows come home but it will still remain true that many people do not like pvp and even for many of those that do they can continually enjoy non pvp games as well. As for knowing what pvp is I would have to argue that you seem to be the one with a lack of understanding as fighting a computer controlled opponent (monster as you indicated) is indeed not pvp (person versus person) combat. If your likening all human created content to be a challenge against another person then your well outside the bounds of the definition of pvp than most people here are arguing. Even with that broad definition there are plenty of human vs environment things that keep people happy for an ongoing basis with no human involvment or design. I have play pvp games and do enjoy some to an extent. Of course I am not talking about being griefed by high level players or anything, almost everyone hates that. I am playing Lineage II which is definately a pvp game. Ive played Shadowbane, DAoC and other pvp style things but what you cant seem to grasp is that I still enjoy the pve elements more then the pvp even when the pvp works out perfectly with equal level characters in a balanced environment. I simply dont get a great deal of enjoyment out of killing other people in a game. I think its more fun to meet people and work with them to overcome other challenges, or god forbid to actually roleplay a little in these roleplay games. Even if by some amazing power you posses you somehow know the innerworkings of my mind better then I do (which you clearly dont from your post) you still cant argue that I have been continually entertained by non pvp mmorpgs. I have spent years and years playing EQ and I was generally thrilled most of the time I was playing. Its great that you enjoy pvp but you really need to realize that there are many many people that do not thrive on the same thing. Wanting more pvp games for yourself is understandable but trying to force everyone else to play it or telilng them they dont know what they want isnt clear logical thinking.
There is no overanylization required to see why people don't even know what they are talking about when they say they hate all possible forms of pvp. If they like PVE that contradicts that statement. If they like to joke around they contradict that statement. If they like to compete in any way shape or form then they contradict that statement.
A mob is not ultimately controlled by a computer, because computers are not capable of controlling anything- they have no motivations. It was programmed by another person- person vs person. Furthermore the difference between a mob that looks like a player and a real player is that he can consistently defeat the mob. (assuming a person could not tell through communication) And the only other difference relevant to this argument is that a mobs creator's feelings are not hurt when you defeat it, if that person even knows you have.
My understanding is that people here are trying to claim that they don't like any form of competition (quite a ludicrous claim) because it hurts someone elses feelings even if you win. First of all everything you do that might earn you the respect of others is competition, and these people obviously think SOME kinds of competition are ok. Second even if one of these people were smart enough to claim that they only disliked competition when themselves winning did NOT require hurting someone elses feelings, they are ignoring the fact that loss in PVP does not have to hurt anyones feelings any more than loss in a friendly game of 1v1 basketball.
No PVE can not keep people entertained continuously, everyone knows it is used up way too fast, even it is dragged out by stretching and time sinks so the fun is not absolutely killed, these things kill the fun themselves for the periods which they stop the players progress.
You have no clue what the perfectly balanced and designed (or even the best balanced and designed) pvp would be like. No none of the games you have mentioned are even close. Many of them have one or two factors which are good ways of controlling things mentioned in my argument. For example, DAOC disallows communication between enemies on RVR servers. Without this a person who defeats you in pvp could suddenly start talking all kinds of junk and raise the loss (in a psychological sense) from the gamble to far greater than what you had previously anticipated. For people succeptable to this, this means there is great risk in any pvp match and one that is completely random at that.
What would happen when someone like you played a game such as depicted by this argument is that you would suddenly have your understanding of pvp turned upside down. Your dislike of pvp to this point is based on what little you have experienced. None of the causes of these bad experiences are essential to pvp. That is why people have no clue what they are talking about when they say "I hate all possible forms of pvp".
You admit that games like everquest are not continually fun (generally thrilled most of the time). The only reason they are not rediculously not fun because of all the time sinks etc is because the game is so simple that you can pretty much do everything in it and socialize at the same time. Therefore it doesn't even matter how crap the game is because your lack of fun is limited by the abillity to socialize, something which should disqualify it from the category of video game IMO (Because a fun game AND a social scene is much more fun). Furthermore as I successfully predicted, when the population as a group starts to get sick of the game people just end up all congregating in one area and conversing with each other not even playing the game. Before that the old people can just leech fun of the new people by supporting them. But when theres no more (or very little) new people to the game everyone just hangs around and chats. And the time sinks/ content stretching stops everyone whose involved's fun when they are in effect.
Yes I do know the inner workings of the HUMAN mind better than you. You can't even make an assesment of this because you misunderstand the things I say. I can understand your mind by understanding my own, many many others (through comparing experiences with other people), and understanding that traits are necessitated by the compisition of a human being. That gives me a pretty good probabillity of being right, like 99.9999999999%, and even if I was wrong then technically you wouldn't be a human being. Now if you were trying to claim that my understanding of the human mind was off that would be a different story.
Originally posted by Alient I'm not sure what the author intended to accomplish by this topic (yes, I did read the intial thesis and argument for PvP). It seems like it was intended for either of two things:
A troll thread. If this is the case, the author has succeeded as the number of replies is over 250. Showing dissatisfaction with the current choices of MMORPG's and how one may go about by designing a new MMORPG or by altering an existing MMORPG to increase satisfaction. This satisfaction is a subjective matter and not an objective matter. Therefore, it should not be argued as such.
I would like to discuss the second case. I believe the dissatisfaction comes from gameplay boredom and that the majority of MMORPG's all have the same basic gameplay. That is why majority of people always claim that their first MMORPG would be their favorite. When they were first introduced to MMORPG's, they did not have that boredom because everything was new. When things started to get old, they decided to try other MMORPG's and realized they were getting bored with the new one much quicker than they did their original. This is because the basic gameplay was the same even if the content was different. So, to combat boredom, some people lean towards PvP because each PvP encounter has a sort of randomness and unpredictability that a game object (e.g. NPC) usually does not have. So, it's conceivable that someone would come up with the argument that PvP does extend the life (continually be fun?) of a MMORPG just as much or more than other means, such as introducing new content. This argument is subjective though, as stated previously. People may like a certain MMORPG for other reasons than the gameplay. This seems counterintuitive because in other genres of games, gameplay is the key factor for the success of those games. This is not so for MMORPG's. But, to argue this point, we need to know what other reasons besides gameplay that someone might be attracted to a MMORPG. Here's how I would classify the basic types of MMORPG players (note that people are usually a combination of more than one of these types):
Single player (aka Loner) - Plays the game as if it were any other single player game. There may be different reasons behind this such as not wanting to wait on others to group up to accomplish a mission. Co-op players - Get together with one or more friends to accomplish goals in the game. Competitors (a form of PvP) - Engage in competition with others one-on-one or teams. Griefers - Enjoy decreasing the enjoyment of others. Levelers - Concerned about the development of their characters' abilities. Economists - Enjoy trading, buying, and selling possesions in the game. Builders - Enjoy building and creating objects in the game. Socialites - Enjoy chatting and/or meeting other people. Actors (aka role-players) - Pretend to be actually in the game and/or another person.
Even though gameplay somewhat affects all of these players, I would argue that gameplay boredom only directly affects the single-player, co-op players, and competitors, and the others are indirectly effected (usually because people are a combination with one of the first three types). Because of this, people who are mainly economists, builders, socialites, or actors won't agree that PvP is an integral part of the life (continually to be fun) of the MMORPG.
As the thread states this is a logical argument. The many pages of posts are people making the same arguments which have nothing to do with the thread directly, or do not make any logical sense. (and my quoting these posts which the mods have suggested I not do, but is difficult for me to make clear my responce to them otherwise.
No the satisfaction is not a subjective matter. People all have fun in the same BASIC way. In the end it all boils down to a chemical in your brain. Before that there is one or two simple perceptions that cause release of the chemical- BASIC perceptions (being respected, realization etc) which can not be changed. Only before that is there room for twisting and turning, so that possibly what makes one person feel loved can make another feel angry. For example I hate to be patted on the back by a guy because of the way I was raised. Thats because it reminds me of being hurt rather than being respected. But if I did like it then it could only be for one or two reasons- as many as there are ways to cause emotions that might be considered fun.
There are people that don't play video games. Well guess what, I'm not worried about them. For the people that do, I can know whats fun about them. A video game can't taste like anything, it can't feel (like as in an orgasim or touch) good. It can give you the feeling of realization, through patterns in the sounds it produces or by figuring out how best to operate in it. Both of these dissappear quickly (music and ideas get old). That leaves only 2 more things that can be called fun. Fight or flight and feeling respected. Fight or flight can only be achieved in a video game in pvp, because it needs to have a gamble to be based on and as my argument claims fighting a mob can't be a gamble because they are too predictable. Then there is respect which can be gained in socialization and through achievement which the whole argument is about.
You basically stated that my argument might be right (sort of) , but first we would need to know what other reasons someone might be attracted to an mmorpg. Well guess what? I know... Just because you don't doesn't mean that A) I don't or you never could.
Ill explain what I know to be the reason for all your types of players:
Single player - Working towards a ghost image of respect for accomplishing single player goals imprinted on them at an early age. The respect might even temporarily manifest in lifelike npcs until they are no longer believable as real people. Temporary realization feelings from figuring things out and listening to music.
Coop player - Same as single, but the respect can also manifest in other players.
Competitors - Same as coop except adrenaline rush is also possible in unpredictable matches with players as opponents. (also possible in the other two the first time or two a mob is encountered) Some people can not at first be in this category that would do single or coop because they beleive in order to feel respected here someone else must feel hurt. This is not true however and once they no longer take the competition seriously they will not feel they are hurting someone else by winning. (ie mature)
Griefers - Well your description here is wrong. They get off on nuetralizing potential psychological threats. Its really a quite common sentiment. If I come into the forum doing what someone percieves as "acting like he smarter than everyone" someone like MrVice might start insulting me. He is trying to find a way to stop this situation which is making him feel bad (ie he might be wrong). Griefers are just trained to see the potential threat in everyone, probably because thats how they were raised (punished too often, for no good reason). And beleive me there is potential threat in everyone. The only person a griefer would feel unjustified in harming is the person who would not hurt him back even if provoked or harmed (hed probably feel guilty then).
Levelers- basically the mmorpg version of single players, but the respect can manifest in other players through recognition.
Economist - the same as leveler, just playing a different part of the game. They are still working towards respect for accomplishing.
Builders - same as economist
Socialites - nothing to do with video games... just because they are in the video game doesn't mean they are playing it. But nevertheless socialization follows a similar model - realization for metaphoric jokes or ideas, respect for the jokes or previous actions, maybe even fight or flight in a social confrontation (not likely in a video game, its not in your face enough)
Actors - same as socialites. Why do they act? Because they remember having fun participating in drama or pen/paper roleplaying games and think this will increase the fun in a computer game. Flawed logic really... the acting before was because they HAD to not because it was the cause of the fun. They wanted something to do so they dress up and play a game or party etc. In video games the "dressing up and acting" is done by the computer and the game itself. Its the equivalent of going to a toga party and demanding that everyone take the extra step of only talking in greek. Youd just piss people off... In any case this is a very small percent.
Given what I have said does any of this contradict my argument? No. First of all the issue of continuous fun means that realization is removed because it wears off too fast. Then- all forms of accomplishment which do not involve pvp are removed because players accomplish everything way faster than the challenges can be made by developers. The attempted solution is to introduce time sinks and stretching the game to 200 lvls etc, but these kill the feeling of accomplishment because too much time passes in between gains. Competitors can be set back using the pvp by making the pvp a gamble in the way described by the argument. Note that just leaves griefers, competitors (basically the same, they both want to win competition), socializers and actors. Socialization can be done in any game or at any time, and is not the limiting factor of fun in a game. A fun multiplayer game is more fun then just a chatroom which is what you have if the only thing fun left about a game is socialization. So now all we have left is competitors as able to have fun without break and forever. (if content is still supplied to meet the now slow rate of consumption.)
Its not so much that PVP is an integral part of MMORPG in some magical way. Its just that it can be fun to everyone, and its the only option left for continual fun. And psychologically its no different then anything else you do in a game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
well i think you have beat this topic into the dirt. its a mater of opinion if you like pvp or pve. personaly ive been playing games since the comadore and i wouldnt still be playin vids if i didnt like the competition so i go ethier way i lke both if done well. anyways i agree with a few others here this subject should be put to rest.
We are talking about a perfect PvP system. You can't argue that a flawed PvP system is always fun nor do I expect anyone will try.
Given we are talking about a perfect system you argument falls over. In a perfect PvE setting (by definition of PvE) the game would be able to generate its own content based on a complex set of rules that react to the actions of players. New quests and areas would develop by themselves adding dynamic content. Your 10X rule is no longer valid as content is created as fast, if not faster than players can use it. In our perfect PvE game combat is dynamic and complex, the AI is so advanced its hard to know if your fighting a computer or a person.
If you want to pull the PvE is PvP card then why are you bothering to argue? In your mind everything is PvP hence even a PvE game can be constantly fun. For you this argument is always true no matter what happens, even in the perfect PvE game that every other person on the planet has fun 100% of the time you will still insist its a PvP game.
Originally posted by martianx well i think you have beat this topic into the dirt. its a mater of opinion if you like pvp or pve. personaly ive been playing games since the comadore and i wouldnt still be playin vids if i didnt like the competition so i go ethier way i lke both if done well. anyways i agree with a few others here this subject should be put to rest.
sorry but I don't think I should stop responding just because one or two stubborn people don't like the argument but refuse to think about it logically. There are many people who have not yet seen this argument, and its well thought out and at this point I'm pretty sure its right.
Originally posted by horrid We are talking about a perfect PvP system. You can't argue that a flawed PvP system is always fun nor do I expect anyone will try. Given we are talking about a perfect system you argument falls over. In a perfect PvE setting (by definition of PvE) the game would be able to generate its own content based on a complex set of rules that react to the actions of players. New quests and areas would develop by themselves adding dynamic content. Your 10X rule is no longer valid as content is created as fast, if not faster than players can use it. In our perfect PvE game combat is dynamic and complex, the AI is so advanced its hard to know if your fighting a computer or a person. If you want to pull the PvE is PvP card then why are you bothering to argue? In your mind everything is PvP hence even a PvE game can be constantly fun. For you this argument is always true no matter what happens, even in the perfect PvE game that every other person on the planet has fun 100% of the time you will still insist its a PvP game.
No not perfect. Just better than what has been seen so far. A non perfect pvp system can be continually fun. The argument simply says that the pvp system has to be able to slow down the player so that devs can make content as fast as it is used without killing the fun in the process. Thats all it takes to be continually fun.
Yes if such a pve system as you have mentioned existed it could be continually fun. Unfortunately thats not going to exist any time soon. The pvp system I have mentioned is very possible right now. The way you can see this is simply by looking at how painless a friendly game of 1v1 basketball is. Before you ask why basketball isn't continually fun, its because you can't get better easily in basketball. If you aren't the top dog you aren't going to find a way to become it anytime soon. In rpgs you can build your character nonstop and have a clear path towards advancement. A better example is money gambling. Some people do this continually although you might claim its not continuously fun. Thats because most types of real life gambling entail more risk than reward- 1 step forward, 2 steps back. A pvp mmorpg can be just as painless as 1v1 basketball, but as fun as a long winning streak in gambling, but the winning streak in an rpg can be infinitely long without the "house losing money"
The PVE is PVP argument is to combat the argument that someone dislikes all types of PVP. The main argument disqualifies PVE by seperate means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Kriminal99 Originally posted by martianx well i think you have beat this topic into the dirt. its a mater of opinion if you like pvp or pve. personaly ive been playing games since the comadore and i wouldnt still be playin vids if i didnt like the competition so i go ethier way i lke both if done well. anyways i agree with a few others here this subject should be put to rest. sorry but I don't think I should stop responding just because one or two stubborn people don't like the argument but refuse to think about it logically. There are many people who have not yet seen this argument, and its well thought out and at this point I'm pretty sure its right.
Man, you are killing me with this...
Keep going. This thread should be archived for comdeic purposes...
Geld first of all I don't care if the definition of fun I use in my argument does not match what is in the dictionary.
Ignoring all facts that contradict your argument.
There is no logical rhyme or reason to the definitions in the dictionary.
Actually, there is a logical reason for the definitions in the dictionary, to show the generally understood defininition of the word.
Note that many other feelings do have universal definitions, as pain is defined as caused by injury etc... The only reason fun is any different is because it is often in peoples interests (or so they believe) to hide the actual things they are feeling. Its much less likely but still possible for people to TRY and do the same thing with something so widely KNOWN to be universal as say pain. Someone can be like yeah I'm such a bad ass it doesn't even hurt when I burn my hand off. Everyone knows in this case that the dude is really hurting like hell regardless of weather he tries to hide it or not because that pain is common to ALL people. But somehow when fun is the feeling in question then people can make up whatever they want about it and its ok because its not known by 98% of people what causes the feelings behind fun...
First off you cannot compare a physical feeling such as pain, to an emotional one like fun. Perhaps this is your biggest mistake, a physical reaction such as pain will be experienced in a similar way with all people. An emotional response is quite different. One of the first rules of psychology is to learn a persons emotional reactions and reasons for those reactions before coming up with any sort of diagnosis. Using these reactions you try to determine a psychological profile which will determine their personality. If it were possible to predict EVERYONE's emotional reaction to a particular situation using the same profile, there really would be no use for psychology at all. It really is hard to take a Premise that is based on psychological principles seriously when it violates some of the basic principles by assuming to know everybody's emotional response.
Well guess what, certain things cause feelings that could be called fun in ALL people (namely things like realization and love/respect which might be the same chemically and things like adrenaline rushes etc) and mmorpgs deal with these things on such a basic level that they cannot be interpreted differently by different personality types. All of those statements are things that people might decide aren't the BEST ways to have fun, but if a person chooses to do any of them then we can know by understanding how people work WHAT things about it is fun to them.
Actually, you are quite wrong in this. There is not a single emotional trigger in the world that cannot generate different responses. Because each is based on the situation, and since in your original post you state that true pvp is so unpredictable as to keep a player constantly entertained, and any variation in the situation can change the emotional response to the outcome.
You are basically trying to beat the audience here into the submission of believing that fun is totally subjective without breaking it down into something that would make sense to anyone who might doubt your argument. You can't break it down because the argument is bogus and doesn't make sense to anyone who doesnt misunderstand what I mean by fun.
As you state "doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't misunderstand what I mean by fun" as yet you haven't defined what you mean by fun, you couldn't possibly have, since it's a subjective term. Which means noone could possibly understand what you mean by fun except you. You cannot state that an argument is bogus simply because you do not understand it. Maybe if you took the time to understand the term 'subjective' you may understand the argument.
If something which to you seems like a self explaining truth is not so to others then it is useless without further understanding of why it is true because it does not make sense to anyone but you. If you would take the two seconds to realize what I mean by fun you would realize I was right...
This is quite a funny statement, you constantly have included subjective opinions in your premises, which noone will understand except you (because they are subjective). Yet you try to pass off my argument as a subjective opinion, when all I really said is that the word fun is subjective. I believe most people do understand, and agree, with that statement (including most dictionaries). You are correct in your last statement however. Because if I did realise what you mean by fun (which requires that I actually become you) then I most certainly would think you are correct. Please try to understand my arguments before replying to them, maybe study a little psychology.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
My argument has nothing to do with forcing people to like anything. If I am correct then people WOULD like the game the argument proposes to make, even if they do not recognize it by looking at this argument. People do not always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them... (as in the feelings they will feel)[/quote]
That's where your wrong. Not everyone WOULD like the game if it was strictly a PvP game. You say people don't always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them, but many experienced MMO player actually DO KNOW. I already know that Horizons ISN'T going to be fun for me just by reading the reviews, forums and game features. For me to actually download the game and try it would be a WASTE of my time, cause I already know it sucks in my eye.
Let me give you a better example. If I take a hammer and hit you upside the head with it and tell you it'll be fun for both of us, no amount of my argument would make you believe that. Would it?!? That's pretty much what your trying to tell us with PvP. It'll be fun if you try it and let it evolve within your mind. No..it's not going to be fun for everything, just like the hammer would be fun against you skull.
Originally posted by TaskyZZ This thread rocks... Right or wrong... Kriminal99 should win an award for most persistent person. He doesn't give up, ignores logical arguments, and posts paragraphs and pages at a time. Rock on, dude!!!
Yeah, you have to love his persistence. I would love someone like Howard Stern or the best Psychiatrist in the world to interview this guy. I'd pay to see that interview. LOL!!
What's so funny is that he believes everyone else is wrong and they're not. The other problem is he doesn't believe he's wrong in any way and his argurments has contradicted themselves so many times it's not funny. Even when someone points this out to him, he doesn't believe it and rants on about how they are wrong. LOL!! This guys a real winner. Wonder if he's an Attorney?
I wouldn't even argue the point any further. I'm surprised this thread is still going. The arguement is pretty much pointless. People are going to play what's fun to them, plain and simple. That's the bottom line, cause Stone Cold said so.
[quote]There is no overanylization required to see why people don't even know what they are talking about when they say they hate all possible forms of pvp. If they like PVE that contradicts that statement. If they like to joke around they contradict that statement. If they like to compete in any way shape or form then they contradict that statement. [/quote]
Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe you don't know what they HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Seriously, you think that everyone who makes an argument against your claims are clueless and false, yet it quite possible that you may be the clueless one. One man who believes he's right about everything is usually wrong about many things. Think about that for awhile.
Originally posted by geld Geld first of all I don't care if the definition of fun I use in my argument does not match what is in the dictionary. There is no logical rhyme or reason to the definitions in the dictionary. Actually, there is a logical reason for the definitions in the dictionary, to show the generally understood defininition of the word. First off you cannot compare a physical feeling such as pain, to an emotional one like fun. Perhaps this is your biggest mistake, a physical reaction such as pain will be experienced in a similar way with all people. An emotional response is quite different. One of the first rules of psychology is to learn a persons emotional reactions and reasons for those reactions before coming up with any sort of diagnosis. Using these reactions you try to determine a psychological profile which will determine their personality. If it were possible to predict EVERYONE's emotional reaction to a particular situation using the same profile, there really would be no use for psychology at all. It really is hard to take a Premise that is based on psychological principles seriously when it violates some of the basic principles by assuming to know everybody's emotional response. Actually, you are quite wrong in this. There is not a single emotional trigger in the world that cannot generate different responses. Because each is based on the situation, and since in your original post you state that true pvp is so unpredictable as to keep a player constantly entertained, and any variation in the situation can change the emotional response to the outcome. As you state "doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't misunderstand what I mean by fun" as yet you haven't defined what you mean by fun, you couldn't possibly have, since it's a subjective term. Which means noone could possibly understand what you mean by fun except you. You cannot state that an argument is bogus simply because you do not understand it. Maybe if you took the time to understand the term 'subjective' you may understand the argument. This is quite a funny statement, you constantly have included subjective opinions in your premises, which noone will understand except you (because they are subjective). Yet you try to pass off my argument as a subjective opinion, when all I really said is that the word fun is subjective. I believe most people do understand, and agree, with that statement (including most dictionaries). You are correct in your last statement however. Because if I did realise what you mean by fun (which requires that I actually become you) then I most certainly would think you are correct.
Ok. Definitions, the REAL ones change every time a word is used. The word (twenty two) probably has many definitions held in a persons mind. One of them is probably a piddly butt excuse for a gun. Another is a car rim thanks to some rapper. Another is the number twenty two. The latter is most likely the only one you would find in a dictionary. All words have these...
All that is important is that people understand what I am saying, which you can't do if people refuse to anyways. The definition of fun in the dictionary does not give its cause. The definition of pain does. The dictionary is by no means consistent. In fact in order for a dictionary to REALLY be accurate, it would have to be connected to everyones consiousness in the entire world in REAL TIME, and each word would have thousands of definitions. When I say fun, I mean the actual feelings which cause it, and the actual causes of the feelings before that. Show me a word with the definition of what I have just described and I will use that instead. People can make the connection the way it is if they want to. You only brought it up as a silly technicality for lack of anything better to say. It certainly does not "contradict my argument".
The definitions of the dictionary might show the results of some kind of poll or consensus, but as people can be wrong, so can the definitions in the dictionary. That simple.
Next. You only THINK you can't compare physical feelings and emotions. But you are wrong. Emotions have definite causes just as physical feelings do. Note that I have never attempted as you do to try and claim knowledge of psychology without explanation. Everything I say I can explain. You on the otherhand try and claim through heresay that I am wrong. There is a reason why silliness like that isn't allowed in courts.
Anyways which premise are you even talking about? The only psychological premises in my argument are the first three that are listed as such. They are so basic that almost anyone can read them and know they are true.
And your reasoning against universal understanding of people is quite flawed. If people didn't have similarities in both composition and personality (which are tied together) then psychology wouldn't be POSSIBLE at all. Psychologists use universal understanding of people ALONG with information gained about a person to make a profile. Supposed I had a formula for all people that predicted everything they would do. If this were possible we know it would require at least every possible experience a person has had as input. At this point its impossible to obtain that information.
Its really quite easy to see why psychology (or even communication of emotions) would be impossible if emotions were really COMPLETELY subjective. If EVERY time you heard someone say love, it referred to a situation you hated, then you would have learned love to mean hate. When was the last time you heard someone say "I like hate and dislike love". The same goes for fun... If EVERY time someone else said something was fun you hated what it was, then you would learn fun to mean not fun. In order to define these terms to a new person, a common feeling of them is needed. That means in ALL PEOPLE have at least one common occurence of each emotion.
However I don't need to prove that because your claim that fun is COMPLETELY subjective has just been disproved. Never mind the common sense argument that if emotions were completely subjective, no order in the world would be possible. Notice this argument says nothing of people who don't play video games.
Wow you continue on about subjective emotions... I guess you are really trying to put one over on readers here. Let me just take the extra step to completely blow this argument out of the water. Define love without using an experience of it in its definition. Because, you know, any experience you might name might produce a different emotion in the person you are defining it too. Let me save you the trouble of browsing thousands of dictionaries. They all either use common experiences or are circular (love: see affection, affection: see love)
Variations do not change the experience of a situation if the same basic pattern exists which directly causes the involved emotion.
HAHAHA I didn't even read this far yet before making the above argument against subjective emotions, and I notice you start to make it for me. Your right, noone could no what I mean AT ALL by fun if it was totally subjective. But they do have an idea of what Im talking about... Imagine that.
Still talking about the dictionary. Realize you now know the dictionary says something which is logically impossible given past experience. What does that tell you about dictionaries?
Actually everyone else seems to understand what my premises are saying crystal clear, they just don't like them... And I didn't call your argument subjective I'm just stating that you aren't able to break it down into common experiences (what people mean by prove it), which you can't because its wrong.
I have studied plenty of psychology, as should be obvious from my posts. (as opposed to claiming "I R TEH P-SCHOLOGY EXPERT, U R TEH WRONG PHEAR!!!")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by XanderZane [quote] My argument has nothing to do with forcing people to like anything. If I am correct then people WOULD like the game the argument proposes to make, even if they do not recognize it by looking at this argument. People do not always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them... (as in the feelings they will feel)[/quote] That's where your wrong. Not everyone WOULD like the game if it was strictly a PvP game. You say people don't always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them, but many experienced MMO player actually DO KNOW. I already know that Horizons ISN'T going to be fun for me just by reading the reviews, forums and game features. For me to actually download the game and try it would be a WASTE of my time, cause I already know it sucks in my eye. Let me give you a better example. If I take a hammer and hit you upside the head with it and tell you it'll be fun for both of us, no amount of my argument would make you believe that. Would it?!? That's pretty much what your trying to tell us with PvP. It'll be fun if you try it and let it evolve within your mind. No..it's not going to be fun for everything, just like the hammer would be fun against you skull. Xander
Xander
EDIT: Shoot double post... I soz
Xander, your right there are two ways people can try to know ahead of time if something is going to be fun or not. (Note you are trying to contradict people do not ALWAYS know with SOME do know) A) they can understand what causes it like me or they can use experience combined with generalization.
As the number of experiences approaches infinity, the number of times the persons generalizations are wrong approaches 0. Before that they can always be wrong. Can you think of any other way? Not likely... With A you are affirming my argument. With B they can still be wrong sometimes. (which is what I am claiming is the case, experiences the statement "i hate pvp" is based on = avg of 3 probably) Feel free to choose.
Your last argument is flawed. We both KNOW being hit with a hammer is NOT fun. So the real parallel here would be to say if I hit you with a hammer it wouldn't be fun would it? And the answer is a 100% sure, non subjective HELL NAW SON!!
If you want to make a closer paralell to my argument, tell someone that doesn't like sex, because they had it once with a constapated donkey and it sucked, that they will like it with a hot girl.
Remember I am arguing that something WOULD be fun, not trying to force it to be... Hey.. your next post is complete propaganda after making such a blantantly obvious wrong argument that only sounds like something. DUH if people make arguments like this whose to say that all 27 pages of this thread aren't composed of the same thing... Im persistant cause I'm right....
Originally posted by XanderZane [Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe you don't know what they HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Seriously, you think that everyone who makes an argument against your claims are clueless and false, yet it quite possible that you may be the clueless one. One man who believes he's right about everything is usually wrong about many things. Think about that for awhile.
"You think that everyone else is clueless" I never said this did I? This RIGHT HERE is why so many people continually flame me, not because I am wrong. It makes some people mad that someone thinks they are wrong, so it doesn't matter if they really are right or wrong they will flame away anyways...
Note how half the arguments here use the defense "its just my opinion" An attempted copout... If Im wrong its just my opinion Is what it really means. People want to always have their view respected, even if they put no thought into it whatsoever. It's ok to be wrong sometimes. There are people in life who when you argue with them your going to be wrong alot and they wont be. Because have spent more time thinking about that subject than you. Thats ok. Just make sure whatever you spend YOUR time doing you do well. And even if there was someone who can do everything you can but better, remember no one person can accomplish everything alone. THATS something to think about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Not everyone WOULD like the game if it was strictly a PvP game. You say people don't always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them, but many experienced MMO player actually DO KNOW. I already know that Horizons ISN'T going to be fun for me just by reading the reviews, forums and game features. For me to actually download the game and try it would be a WASTE of my time, cause I already know it sucks in my eye.
He never said 'everyone' would like the game, just gamers who generally appeal to MMORPG's. He also never said 'strictly a PVP game' - he said a game that included PVP which met a certain set of standards that have not yet been implemented by any game as of yet.
You claim many experienced MMO player actually DO KNOW what is going to be fun for them. No matter how much experience someone has in this genre, they haven't experienced the PVP system Kriminal has described. All the arguments against this so far have consisted of claims that relate directly to negative experiences they have had in a previous instance. However in the PVP system at hand would consist of several factors that would prohibit/discourage/prevent behavior that has generally led to such experiences in those past instances. Therefore, these arguments, although directed at "PVP", correlate to factors that neither exist necessarily in PVP, nor the ideal PVP system we are discussing.
You have decided not to play Horizons due to the research you have done on the game, and your understanding of what past experiences have/haven't entertained you. No one here is saying you are wrong for making that judgment. However if you decided it 'sucks' merely because it has crafting (for example), and you hate crafting period, I would guess you had a bad crafting experience in the past. If this were the case, you might be missing out on some serious fun, as Horizons may have a crafting system that is completely unlike the one you utilized when you had the negative experience. Same thing goes with anyone who doesn't like 'PVP'.
Let me give you a better example. If I take a hammer and hit you upside the head with it and tell you it'll be fun for both of us, no amount of my argument would make you believe that. Would it?!? That's pretty much what your trying to tell us with PvP. It'll be fun if you try it and let it evolve within your mind. No..it's not going to be fun for everything, just like the hammer would be fun against you skull.
LOL, this works perfectly with my previous example. Perhaps you really did hit yourself in the head with a hammer last time you crafted! No wonder you hate it so much!! =P Well you may be surprised to find that noobs get construction hats and rubber-plated hammers for their first 5 levels in the new system.
The real problem though, is that you compare a basic concept, such as PVP, to a specific, negative event, where as it should instead be compared to another basic concept, such as crafting, or construction, where this negative event might occur. In this case, as in most, the potential for negative experiences can usually be avoided by taking small precautions and/or making minor changes to the system. Thx.
I still don't agree that slowing content consumption via PvP is the only way to make the game continually fun. Your failure to discover a PvE solution does not mean there isn't one. Prove to me that its not possible to make a game with evolving PvE content with todays technology. It could be done. Don't bother telling me it couldn't unless you can find me some documented proof that it can't.
Change your statement to "one of the most cost effective ways to make a mmorpg continually fun is to base some elements on PvP". That I agree with that 100%, but don't tell me its the only way.
I can think of some ways you could use a computer to generate maps and populate it with monsters based on a good rule set that could then be quickly enchanced by world builders. Ever played Diablo? Anarchy online? Games are doing it in a limited way now, its not that many more steps to the next level. The tools could generate all the npcs, set up factions within the zone and just need a world builder to clean it up and add custom dialog and flesh out the factions with some quests.
Originally posted by Kriminal99 No the satisfaction is not a subjective matter. People all have fun in the same BASIC way. In the end it all boils down to a chemical in your brain.
Some people think jumping out of planes is fun, while some find it frightning. Therefore, those chemicals must be causing different reactions. This must mean that people must not all have fun in the same BASIC way.
I agree with you that people play games because games revolve around the idea of competition, which you take as your basic premise that all people should like PvP in MMORPGs. RTS games, such as Warcraft, revolve around players going against other players in competition. Does this mean that everybody should find RTS games fun? I for one don't. Then you have FPS, such as Unreal Tournament, which also revolves around players pitted against other players. In this case, I do find it fun. These are examples of PvP. So, do I like other games that are not PvP. I found single-player RPGs such as the whole Final Fantasy series, Ultima series, Deus Ex, and others quite enjoyable as PvE. I found Neverwinter Nights more enjoyable as a single-player game then being an online game.
Yet, I know this is not your argument. Your argument is that MMORPGs need PvP to be continually fun. Like in my previous post, I can see where you are coming from. But, a lot of developers opt to continually add content to increase the fun and longevity of the game. This is where your argument is. It doesn't matter how much you have studied in psychology if you don't have the dollar figures or a successful game such as EQ to back up which method is better suited to keep interest in a game for a long period of time. There's a reason why a lot of games try to emulate EQ. It's because it works. EQ does have PvP but it's not centered around it and majority of people playing EQ do not partake in PvP. Just because the chemicals in your brain might be telling you it's fun, other people's chemicals are telling them something different, just like the people jumping out of airplanes. So, it is subjective and can't be bolied down to chemical reactions.
I have NEVER heard of a person who has gone skydiving and NOT liked it. 99.9% of people who DON'T like skydiving, HAVEN'T DONE IT. They say they wouldn't like it because their of past experiences with falling (like falling off their bed at night) or learned perceptions such as watching someone fall and die on TV.
To say that fun and emotion are not caused by the structure and chemistry of the brain is a complete falsehood. EVERYTHING that happens in this world is pure physics. Even though our brains are very complex, and there can be a lot of factors involved to every action/reaction, it is definitely possible to map these things out and make every single person completely predictable in any environment. Do you think you have a quasi-physical SOUL that determines what's fun for you? No, it's your human brain that is VERY similar to all these other human brains in the world, brains we have studied for hundreds of years, brains we have interviewed, observed, tested and disected. Will everyone have fun doing the exact same thing? No. But we are talking about MMORPG players here. If you enjoy PVE, then you should also enjoy the right kind of PVP. Because PVE is still PVP in the long run, since the NPC's you encounter act according to the instructions of the dev who programmed them. The reason people play multi-player games is to deal directly with people, not indirectly, as with single-player games. Wouldn't everyone rather fight a monster who has a complex personality and intelligence, rather than a mindless robot that does the same thing every time? This is the epitomy of monotony which equals BORING. PVP is the same as PVE except there is more variety and challenge. And we aren't talking about any PVP that has been done so far, we are talking about an enhanced system which prevents the types of negative experiences that have caused people to have poor conceptions of PVP.
Please god please, help these poor people understand. We are not comparing apples to oranges here!!! We are comparing apples to apples. Yes some people don't like oranges, and some people don't like apples, but the people who like apples...LIKE APPLES! And what is being offered at this time is the idea of apples that don't rot over time. Isn't it safe to say that EVERYONE who likes apples would prefer ones that stayed edible and tasty for a longer period of time?? The only people who WOULDN'T like this are the people who like to eat rotten apples. OK, CASE CLOSED, THANKS!
Originally posted by feedtherich I have NEVER heard of a person who has gone skydiving and NOT liked it. 99.9% of people who DON'T like skydiving, HAVEN'T DONE IT. They say they wouldn't like it because their of past experiences with falling (like falling off their bed at night) or learned perceptions such as watching someone fall and die on TV.To say that fun and emotion are not caused by the structure and chemistry of the brain is a complete falsehood. EVERYTHING that happens in this world is pure physics.
Ok, let's use another example instead of skydiving, let's use going to large parties. Some people will think the party is fun because they like being around many people. There are some people who hate large crowds and would consider the party not fun. My point is there is no basic way of having fun. Of course people who are afraid of heights would not jump out of a perfectly good airplane for fun, because in their minds it wouldn't be fun.
Everything is boiled down to physics, but how can you go down to the atomic level and describe fun? There are different levels of abstraction to everything and certain things need to be looked at higher levels than at the base levels of physics.
And, I'm not saying that fun and emotion are not caused by the structure and chemistry of the brain. I'm stating that the structure and chemical reactions react differently in different people. We aren't clones of one another. So, until you do a chemical analysis of everybody who wants to play a MMORPG and then design the game around that, fun is subjective.
Originally posted by geld Geld first of all I don't care if the definition of fun I use in my argument does not match what is in the dictionary. There is no logical rhyme or reason to the definitions in the dictionary. Actually, there is a logical reason for the definitions in the dictionary, to show the generally understood defininition of the word. First off you cannot compare a physical feeling such as pain, to an emotional one like fun. Perhaps this is your biggest mistake, a physical reaction such as pain will be experienced in a similar way with all people. An emotional response is quite different. One of the first rules of psychology is to learn a persons emotional reactions and reasons for those reactions before coming up with any sort of diagnosis. Using these reactions you try to determine a psychological profile which will determine their personality. If it were possible to predict EVERYONE's emotional reaction to a particular situation using the same profile, there really would be no use for psychology at all. It really is hard to take a Premise that is based on psychological principles seriously when it violates some of the basic principles by assuming to know everybody's emotional response. Actually, you are quite wrong in this. There is not a single emotional trigger in the world that cannot generate different responses. Because each is based on the situation, and since in your original post you state that true pvp is so unpredictable as to keep a player constantly entertained, and any variation in the situation can change the emotional response to the outcome. As you state "doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't misunderstand what I mean by fun" as yet you haven't defined what you mean by fun, you couldn't possibly have, since it's a subjective term. Which means noone could possibly understand what you mean by fun except you. You cannot state that an argument is bogus simply because you do not understand it. Maybe if you took the time to understand the term 'subjective' you may understand the argument. This is quite a funny statement, you constantly have included subjective opinions in your premises, which noone will understand except you (because they are subjective). Yet you try to pass off my argument as a subjective opinion, when all I really said is that the word fun is subjective. I believe most people do understand, and agree, with that statement (including most dictionaries). You are correct in your last statement however. Because if I did realise what you mean by fun (which requires that I actually become you) then I most certainly would think you are correct.
Ok. Definitions, the REAL ones change every time a word is used. The word (twenty two) probably has many definitions held in a persons mind. One of them is probably a piddly butt excuse for a gun. Another is a car rim thanks to some rapper. Another is the number twenty two. The latter is most likely the only one you would find in a dictionary. All words have these...
All that is important is that people understand what I am saying, which you can't do if people refuse to anyways. The definition of fun in the dictionary does not give its cause. The definition of pain does. The dictionary is by no means consistent. In fact in order for a dictionary to REALLY be accurate, it would have to be connected to everyones consiousness in the entire world in REAL TIME, and each word would have thousands of definitions. When I say fun, I mean the actual feelings which cause it, and the actual causes of the feelings before that. Show me a word with the definition of what I have just described and I will use that instead. People can make the connection the way it is if they want to. You only brought it up as a silly technicality for lack of anything better to say. It certainly does not "contradict my argument".
The definitions of the dictionary might show the results of some kind of poll or consensus, but as people can be wrong, so can the definitions in the dictionary. That simple.
Next. You only THINK you can't compare physical feelings and emotions. But you are wrong. Emotions have definite causes just as physical feelings do. Note that I have never attempted as you do to try and claim knowledge of psychology without explanation. Everything I say I can explain. You on the otherhand try and claim through heresay that I am wrong. There is a reason why silliness like that isn't allowed in courts.
Anyways which premise are you even talking about? The only psychological premises in my argument are the first three that are listed as such. They are so basic that almost anyone can read them and know they are true.
And your reasoning against universal understanding of people is quite flawed. If people didn't have similarities in both composition and personality (which are tied together) then psychology wouldn't be POSSIBLE at all. Psychologists use universal understanding of people ALONG with information gained about a person to make a profile. Supposed I had a formula for all people that predicted everything they would do. If this were possible we know it would require at least every possible experience a person has had as input. At this point its impossible to obtain that information.
Its really quite easy to see why psychology (or even communication of emotions) would be impossible if emotions were really COMPLETELY subjective. If EVERY time you heard someone say love, it referred to a situation you hated, then you would have learned love to mean hate. When was the last time you heard someone say "I like hate and dislike love". The same goes for fun... If EVERY time someone else said something was fun you hated what it was, then you would learn fun to mean not fun. In order to define these terms to a new person, a common feeling of them is needed. That means in ALL PEOPLE have at least one common occurence of each emotion.
However I don't need to prove that because your claim that fun is COMPLETELY subjective has just been disproved. Never mind the common sense argument that if emotions were completely subjective, no order in the world would be possible. Notice this argument says nothing of people who don't play video games.
Wow you continue on about subjective emotions... I guess you are really trying to put one over on readers here. Let me just take the extra step to completely blow this argument out of the water. Define love without using an experience of it in its definition. Because, you know, any experience you might name might produce a different emotion in the person you are defining it too. Let me save you the trouble of browsing thousands of dictionaries. They all either use common experiences or are circular (love: see affection, affection: see love)
Variations do not change the experience of a situation if the same basic pattern exists which directly causes the involved emotion.
HAHAHA I didn't even read this far yet before making the above argument against subjective emotions, and I notice you start to make it for me. Your right, noone could no what I mean AT ALL by fun if it was totally subjective. But they do have an idea of what Im talking about... Imagine that.
Still talking about the dictionary. Realize you now know the dictionary says something which is logically impossible given past experience. What does that tell you about dictionaries?
Actually everyone else seems to understand what my premises are saying crystal clear, they just don't like them... And I didn't call your argument subjective I'm just stating that you aren't able to break it down into common experiences (what people mean by prove it), which you can't because its wrong.
I have studied plenty of psychology, as should be obvious from my posts. (as opposed to claiming "I R TEH P-SCHOLOGY EXPERT, U R TEH WRONG PHEAR!!!")
First off, you have not disproven the dictionary definition of fun, really you have reinforced it. Of course the word has different meanings because of it's subjective nature. You actually state your definition of fun, finally. Which is not actually anyone else view of fun at all. You are talking about the emotional triggers which cause the reaction of fun in ANY human being. The reason I am catching you out for using the wrong word is because it is what many of the people who responded to you have been talking about. But you always respond by stating they don't understand your definition of fun. They were actually not wrong in their posts, you simply were using the wrong word, the word fun doesn't accurately describe what you intend to project.
Now I have no idea where you got the idea from my last post that I said fun is COMPLETELY subjective. Maybe you should read it again, it merely states that the word IS subjective, which is undeniably true. Of course there are people who share personality traits, which is what makes psychology possible. The ablility to group people under a psychological profile. I state that people have different responses to different emotional triggers, and you respond by saying that not EVERYONE has different emotional responses. Well yes that is true, but doesn't disprove the original statement, which remains true. As you know, psychology would not exist without emotional variation.
As for the last post, I actually do know someone who experiences pure terror from skydiving, only having done it once, in tandem. They would never do it again, as the experience was far from 'fun'. I also know someone who experiences nothing but GUILT after having defeated another human player in a PVP match. They would feel bad for that person, as he/she has to undergo some considerable effort to regain their characters fromer strength. Of course this persons feelings having lost a PVP match are also negative. I guess all I'm trying to get across to you is the fact that there are ALWAYS going to be different responses to the same emotional triggers. Argue that fact all you want, but it has been proven time and time again to be true. One of the reasons psychology is such a fascinating subject is the unpredictability of the human brain. Trying to predict someones reaction without having first studied their behavior to determine their individual psychological profile will almost always result in failure. Don't try to argue that there is an emotional trigger that will generate the same response in ALL human beings, such a trigger does not exist.
I would ask that you try to come up with any event that causes the same emotional reaction in all human beings. I will always be able to come up with an exception.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
Originally posted by geld First off, you have not disproven the dictionary definition of fun, really you have reinforced it. Of course the word has different meanings because of it's subjective nature. You actually state your definition of fun, finally. Which is not actually anyone else view of fun at all. You are talking about the emotional triggers which cause the reaction of fun in ANY human being. The reason I am catching you out for using the wrong word is because it is what many of the people who responded to you have been talking about. But you always respond by stating they don't understand your definition of fun. They were actually not wrong in their posts, you simply were using the wrong word, the word fun doesn't accurately describe what you intend to project. Now I have no idea where you got the idea from my last post that I said fun is COMPLETELY subjective. Maybe you should read it again, it merely states that the word IS subjective, which is undeniably true. Of course there are people who share personality traits, which is what makes psychology possible. The ablility to group people under a psychological profile. I state that people have different responses to different emotional triggers, and you respond by saying that not EVERYONE has different emotional responses. Well yes that is true, but doesn't disprove the original statement, which remains true. As you know, psychology would not exist without emotional variation. As for the last post, I actually do know someone who experiences pure terror from skydiving, only having done it once, in tandem. They would never do it again, as the experience was far from 'fun'. I also know someone who experiences nothing but GUILT after having defeated another human player in a PVP match. They would feel bad for that person, as he/she has to undergo some considerable effort to regain their characters fromer strength. Of course this persons feelings having lost a PVP match are also negative. I guess all I'm trying to get across to you is the fact that there are ALWAYS going to be different responses to the same emotional triggers. Argue that fact all you want, but it has been proven time and time again to be true. One of the reasons psychology is such a fascinating subject is the unpredictability of the human brain. Trying to predict someones reaction without having first studied their behavior to determine their individual psychological profile will almost always result in failure. Don't try to argue that there is an emotional trigger that will generate the same response in ALL human beings, such a trigger does not exist. I would ask that you try to come up with any event that causes the same emotional reaction in all human beings. I will always be able to come up with an exception.
Prove, disprove the dictionary? What are you talking about geld? The dictionary does not claim to be some kind of psychological authourity when it comes to how it defines words. Thats why different dictionaries have different definitions...
AND geld you misunderstood my argument. Its not SOME people have similar emotional responses to the same emotional triggers. Its ALL people have the same emotional responses to SOME emotional triggers. That means saying "fun is subjective" does not contradict my argument. If this were not the case, some people would never be able to learn the definitions of "fun" "love" etc. as I had just pointed out. Thats why dictionaries define these terms with common experiences of them... Yet there is noone who is not able to learn these terms. You might need to take a second to think about this to realize that its really true.
An example of this is being loved. Am I talking about the emotion itself or a trigger that causes it? I'm talking about BOTH. Because there is a basic emotional trigger that ALWAYS causes this emotion in all people. Without it we wouldn't be able to communicate emotions to one another. People don't always feel loved at the same times. But everyone has the same emotion when they feel loved. When I say that you think of things like people expressing gratitude towards you respecting you for an accomplishment or one of another few. Those are basic things that are common to everyone.
The only place for different interpretation is after this. Maybe people have a different idea of an accomplishment. But there is only a FEW of these basic triggers. All experiences that cause any emotion at all are funneled into one of these few. That means if someone is doing something, there is only a FEW reasons why they might be doing it. And its easy to figure out what these basic triggers are and when they might come into play.
I don't say anything about people that play sports rather than mmorpgs.
So you say someone feels guilty for winning pvp. Ill grant that my argument requires a setback. Let me ask something though. Does this person feel guilty for having a nice car and people paying attention to him. Or for telling a funny joke. They all setback other people. Winning in a sport?
The difference between pvp and these situations is simple. He doesn't care if someone else tells a funny joke and people pay attention to that person for a minute, so he doesn't feel guilty for telling one himself. So if the game made it so that he no longer got mad when he dies in pvp, then he wouldn't feel guilty about winning. The golden rule is the basic trigger behind guilt.
People that play mmorpgs can only experience a couple basic triggers that might be considered fun. Realization, love/respect, fight or flight. The reason for participating in pvp is the exact same for the reason for participating in pve. love/respect for an accomplishment.
I might grant you that I need to add a premise for guilt (which I just did) and any other bad emotion which I might have left out (Can't think of any other, Anger is in the argument)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Comments
I don't understand how the title of this thread can even be argued when it is an obvious fact that it is untrue. Maybe you should have changed the wording to be -
Logical argument why to be continually fun for me, a MMORPG must be PVP based
The fact that many people enjoy non pvp mmorpgs for many many years pretty much makes this a moot point.
I think Harafnir from just above is right, its a pvper psychological disorder that makes them think because its fun for them that everyone else is lying about what they do or don't like or fooling themselves.
Actually I don't know of any pvp where there is any death involved. Certainly not of the actual players, and I know of hardly any where the character permanently dies. You call it death but your character respawns and only suffers minor setbacks.
This argument is the same as calling losing in a game of basketball death and then yelling at someone for winning a 1 on 1 saying "OH MY GOD YOU BASTARD YOU KILLED HIM!!!"
There is no person that hates all form of competition. Keep in mind that even talking is competition in the sense that only one person can be the funniest that is being laughed at for any one second...
Geld first of all I don't care if the definition of fun I use in my argument does not match what is in the dictionary. There is no logical rhyme or reason to the definitions in the dictionary. Note that many other feelings do have universal definitions, as pain is defined as caused by injury etc... The only reason fun is any different is because it is often in peoples interests (or so they believe) to hide the actual things they are feeling. Its much less likely but still possible for people to TRY and do the same thing with something so widely KNOWN to be universal as say pain. Someone can be like yeah I'm such a bad ass it doesn't even hurt when I burn my hand off. Everyone knows in this case that the dude is really hurting like hell regardless of weather he tries to hide it or not because that pain is common to ALL people. But somehow when fun is the feeling in question then people can make up whatever they want about it and its ok because its not known by 98% of people what causes the feelings behind fun...
Well guess what, certain things cause feelings that could be called fun in ALL people (namely things like realization and love/respect which might be the same chemically and things like adrenaline rushes etc) and mmorpgs deal with these things on such a basic level that they cannot be interpreted differently by different personality types.
All of those statements are things that people might decide aren't the BEST ways to have fun, but if a person chooses to do any of them then we can know by understanding how people work WHAT things about it is fun to them.
You are basically trying to beat the audience here into the submission of believing that fun is totally subjective without breaking it down into something that would make sense to anyone who might doubt your argument. You can't break it down because the argument is bogus and doesn't make sense to anyone who doesnt misunderstand what I mean by fun. If something which to you seems like a self explaining truth is not so to others then it is useless without further understanding of why it is true because it does not make sense to anyone but you. If you would take the two seconds to realize what I mean by fun you would realize I was right...
Um I don't think "roleplaying" as in playing a role has anything to do with combat being stat only based. Just because back in the day of the garage gamer geeks it couldn't be anyother way doesn't mean that it has to stay that way in the computer age in order to be a "role playing game". Anyways more importantly the argument clearly shows that stat only based games cannot be fun without break.
This is obviously one of those propaganda posts where the guy didn't even read the argument at the beginning of the thread before trying to dupe any new reader just looking at his post into thinking the thread isn't what it is...
Funny I have played most of the hardcore pvp based games and never seen this argument before. Usually on all those boards I was the one making the most thought out arguments for why pvp is very important...
So the whole basis for your immature rant is that "pvp is good if done right, bad if done wrong" Nevermind that this is in the argument already... (which you obviously didn't read) All of the games which you refer too have huge flaws which are pointed out as problems in my argument. Shadowbane is too limiting in player choices of actions, pvp can happen too unexpectedly, and it can be forced on people who wouldn't want to otherwise. Planetside is just a pure fps, these games get old fast because there is nothing a player can do to get a better chance of gaining recognition in the game. Right away the player knows if he is the best and if not he probably never can be and probably will never get respect and so the game gets boring.
You wonder into a logical discussion thread and without even reading the argument in question start spouting that PVPERS have no grasp of reality and can't respond to arguments with any more than "pvp roxxors" Thats pretty ironic...
Because its only "obviously untrue" to people who have not studied any psychology or thought about the way people act. Peoples feelings are caused by the same basic causes. People's personalities can cause them to interpret things slightly differently or in different order but they cannot change the emotional responses to the same basic things like physical harm or being respected etc.
The reason once again why people like you are wrong when you say that "I don't like any type of pvp" is because you don't even know what you are talking about when you say pvp. You have pvp forceably defined as being ganked by higher level players or something similar when this need not have anything to do with pvp. Fighting mobs is a form of pvp and the only difference is that you win much more often...
Continually fun here means that it is fun without break. So no, the fact that people have played pve mmorpgs before doesn't contradict the argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
You can over analyze it till the cows come home but it will still remain true that many people do not like pvp and even for many of those that do they can continually enjoy non pvp games as well.
As for knowing what pvp is I would have to argue that you seem to be the one with a lack of understanding as fighting a computer controlled opponent (monster as you indicated) is indeed not pvp (person versus person) combat.
If your likening all human created content to be a challenge against another person then your well outside the bounds of the definition of pvp than most people here are arguing. Even with that broad definition there are plenty of human vs environment things that keep people happy for an ongoing basis with no human involvment or design.
I have play pvp games and do enjoy some to an extent. Of course I am not talking about being griefed by high level players or anything, almost everyone hates that. I am playing Lineage II which is definately a pvp game. Ive played Shadowbane, DAoC and other pvp style things but what you cant seem to grasp is that I still enjoy the pve elements more then the pvp even when the pvp works out perfectly with equal level characters in a balanced environment.
I simply dont get a great deal of enjoyment out of killing other people in a game. I think its more fun to meet people and work with them to overcome other challenges, or god forbid to actually roleplay a little in these roleplay games.
Even if by some amazing power you posses you somehow know the innerworkings of my mind better then I do (which you clearly dont from your post) you still cant argue that I have been continually entertained by non pvp mmorpgs. I have spent years and years playing EQ and I was generally thrilled most of the time I was playing.
Its great that you enjoy pvp but you really need to realize that there are many many people that do not thrive on the same thing. Wanting more pvp games for yourself is understandable but trying to force everyone else to play it or telilng them they dont know what they want isnt clear logical thinking.
I'm not sure what the author intended to accomplish by this topic (yes, I did read the intial thesis and argument for PvP). It seems like it was intended for either of two things:
I would like to discuss the second case. I believe the dissatisfaction comes from gameplay boredom and that the majority of MMORPG's all have the same basic gameplay. That is why majority of people always claim that their first MMORPG would be their favorite. When they were first introduced to MMORPG's, they did not have that boredom because everything was new. When things started to get old, they decided to try other MMORPG's and realized they were getting bored with the new one much quicker than they did their original. This is because the basic gameplay was the same even if the content was different.
So, to combat boredom, some people lean towards PvP because each PvP encounter has a sort of randomness and unpredictability that a game object (e.g. NPC) usually does not have. So, it's conceivable that someone would come up with the argument that PvP does extend the life (continually be fun?) of a MMORPG just as much or more than other means, such as introducing new content.
This argument is subjective though, as stated previously. People may like a certain MMORPG for other reasons than the gameplay. This seems counterintuitive because in other genres of games, gameplay is the key factor for the success of those games. This is not so for MMORPG's. But, to argue this point, we need to know what other reasons besides gameplay that someone might be attracted to a MMORPG.
Here's how I would classify the basic types of MMORPG players (note that people are usually a combination of more than one of these types):
Even though gameplay somewhat affects all of these players, I would argue that gameplay boredom only directly affects the single-player, co-op players, and competitors, and the others are indirectly effected (usually because people are a combination with one of the first three types). Because of this, people who are mainly economists, builders, socialites, or actors won't agree that PvP is an integral part of the life (continually to be fun) of the MMORPG.
I believe the main problem can be the comparison of MMORPG's to games from other genres. Other genres try to polish their gameplay by simplifying it to attract a certain type of player who will be their core-base. MMORPG developers for some reason seems to think that they need to attract all the different types of people I mentioned above (except for the griefer). For this reason, I think the gameplay doesn't seem to be as polished in MMORPG's compared to other games. Planetside did try to opt to just appeal to the competitors and not to economists, builders, and roleplayers. But it has too much of a FPS feel than a MMORPG feel to it, therefore it alienated PvP'rs who still love the other aspects of other MMORPG's. Sims went to cater to the socialites, actors, and builders, yet, doesn't have a feel of a game.
I like seeing developers get away from the standard gameplay that usually imitates EQ, but the very few options (e.g. Planetside and Sims) get too far away from the core of what some people call a true MMORPG. EQ was very successful and because of this, many games that try to imitate that gameplay will usually get funded before a game that will try to come up with new gameplay options. I wish that developers will realize that you do not need to cater to all the different types of players that I mentioned to have a successful game. There are niches that can be filled. This thread should show that there are people who believe that a MMORPG centered around PvP interaction (but not like Planetside) can fill a niche that hasn't been filled yet.
I personally want to see a game where NPC's are very limited and where most of the interaction (combat, economy, missions, etc) are driven by players and not the content or features of the game.
Before people start bashing and flaming one another because of how they think a MMORPG should be, look at what kind of players are attracted to the game and understand that they would like to see their style of play emphasized a little more than the others. Just because this is subjective, doesn't mean it's not important or not useful. You can still use subjective matter in an objective way to find a solution to a problem. It's just that you can't argue against subjective matter because of it's nature (there's no right or wrong amongst opinions).
There is no overanylization required to see why people don't even know what they are talking about when they say they hate all possible forms of pvp. If they like PVE that contradicts that statement. If they like to joke around they contradict that statement. If they like to compete in any way shape or form then they contradict that statement.
A mob is not ultimately controlled by a computer, because computers are not capable of controlling anything- they have no motivations. It was programmed by another person- person vs person. Furthermore the difference between a mob that looks like a player and a real player is that he can consistently defeat the mob. (assuming a person could not tell through communication) And the only other difference relevant to this argument is that a mobs creator's feelings are not hurt when you defeat it, if that person even knows you have.
My understanding is that people here are trying to claim that they don't like any form of competition (quite a ludicrous claim) because it hurts someone elses feelings even if you win. First of all everything you do that might earn you the respect of others is competition, and these people obviously think SOME kinds of competition are ok. Second even if one of these people were smart enough to claim that they only disliked competition when themselves winning did NOT require hurting someone elses feelings, they are ignoring the fact that loss in PVP does not have to hurt anyones feelings any more than loss in a friendly game of 1v1 basketball.
No PVE can not keep people entertained continuously, everyone knows it is used up way too fast, even it is dragged out by stretching and time sinks so the fun is not absolutely killed, these things kill the fun themselves for the periods which they stop the players progress.
You have no clue what the perfectly balanced and designed (or even the best balanced and designed) pvp would be like. No none of the games you have mentioned are even close. Many of them have one or two factors which are good ways of controlling things mentioned in my argument. For example, DAOC disallows communication between enemies on RVR servers. Without this a person who defeats you in pvp could suddenly start talking all kinds of junk and raise the loss (in a psychological sense) from the gamble to far greater than what you had previously anticipated. For people succeptable to this, this means there is great risk in any pvp match and one that is completely random at that.
What would happen when someone like you played a game such as depicted by this argument is that you would suddenly have your understanding of pvp turned upside down. Your dislike of pvp to this point is based on what little you have experienced. None of the causes of these bad experiences are essential to pvp. That is why people have no clue what they are talking about when they say "I hate all possible forms of pvp".
You admit that games like everquest are not continually fun (generally thrilled most of the time). The only reason they are not rediculously not fun because of all the time sinks etc is because the game is so simple that you can pretty much do everything in it and socialize at the same time. Therefore it doesn't even matter how crap the game is because your lack of fun is limited by the abillity to socialize, something which should disqualify it from the category of video game IMO (Because a fun game AND a social scene is much more fun). Furthermore as I successfully predicted, when the population as a group starts to get sick of the game people just end up all congregating in one area and conversing with each other not even playing the game. Before that the old people can just leech fun of the new people by supporting them. But when theres no more (or very little) new people to the game everyone just hangs around and chats. And the time sinks/ content stretching stops everyone whose involved's fun when they are in effect.
Yes I do know the inner workings of the HUMAN mind better than you. You can't even make an assesment of this because you misunderstand the things I say. I can understand your mind by understanding my own, many many others (through comparing experiences with other people), and understanding that traits are necessitated by the compisition of a human being. That gives me a pretty good probabillity of being right, like 99.9999999999%, and even if I was wrong then technically you wouldn't be a human being. Now if you were trying to claim that my understanding of the human mind was off that would be a different story.
As the thread states this is a logical argument. The many pages of posts are people making the same arguments which have nothing to do with the thread directly, or do not make any logical sense. (and my quoting these posts which the mods have suggested I not do, but is difficult for me to make clear my responce to them otherwise.
No the satisfaction is not a subjective matter. People all have fun in the same BASIC way. In the end it all boils down to a chemical in your brain. Before that there is one or two simple perceptions that cause release of the chemical- BASIC perceptions (being respected, realization etc) which can not be changed. Only before that is there room for twisting and turning, so that possibly what makes one person feel loved can make another feel angry. For example I hate to be patted on the back by a guy because of the way I was raised. Thats because it reminds me of being hurt rather than being respected. But if I did like it then it could only be for one or two reasons- as many as there are ways to cause emotions that might be considered fun.
There are people that don't play video games. Well guess what, I'm not worried about them. For the people that do, I can know whats fun about them. A video game can't taste like anything, it can't feel (like as in an orgasim or touch) good. It can give you the feeling of realization, through patterns in the sounds it produces or by figuring out how best to operate in it. Both of these dissappear quickly (music and ideas get old). That leaves only 2 more things that can be called fun. Fight or flight and feeling respected. Fight or flight can only be achieved in a video game in pvp, because it needs to have a gamble to be based on and as my argument claims fighting a mob can't be a gamble because they are too predictable. Then there is respect which can be gained in socialization and through achievement which the whole argument is about.
You basically stated that my argument might be right (sort of) , but first we would need to know what other reasons someone might be attracted to an mmorpg. Well guess what? I know... Just because you don't doesn't mean that A) I don't or
you never could.
Ill explain what I know to be the reason for all your types of players:
Single player - Working towards a ghost image of respect for accomplishing single player goals imprinted on them at an early age. The respect might even temporarily manifest in lifelike npcs until they are no longer believable as real people. Temporary realization feelings from figuring things out and listening to music.
Coop player - Same as single, but the respect can also manifest in other players.
Competitors - Same as coop except adrenaline rush is also possible in unpredictable matches with players as opponents. (also possible in the other two the first time or two a mob is encountered) Some people can not at first be in this category that would do single or coop because they beleive in order to feel respected here someone else must feel hurt. This is not true however and once they no longer take the competition seriously they will not feel they are hurting someone else by winning. (ie mature)
Griefers - Well your description here is wrong. They get off on nuetralizing potential psychological threats. Its really a quite common sentiment. If I come into the forum doing what someone percieves as "acting like he smarter than everyone" someone like MrVice might start insulting me. He is trying to find a way to stop this situation which is making him feel bad (ie he might be wrong). Griefers are just trained to see the potential threat in everyone, probably because thats how they were raised (punished too often, for no good reason). And beleive me there is potential threat in everyone. The only person a griefer would feel unjustified in harming is the person who would not hurt him back even if provoked or harmed (hed probably feel guilty then).
Levelers- basically the mmorpg version of single players, but the respect can manifest in other players through recognition.
Economist - the same as leveler, just playing a different part of the game. They are still working towards respect for accomplishing.
Builders - same as economist
Socialites - nothing to do with video games... just because they are in the video game doesn't mean they are playing it. But nevertheless socialization follows a similar model - realization for metaphoric jokes or ideas, respect for the jokes or previous actions, maybe even fight or flight in a social confrontation (not likely in a video game, its not in your face enough)
Actors - same as socialites. Why do they act? Because they remember having fun participating in drama or pen/paper roleplaying games and think this will increase the fun in a computer game. Flawed logic really... the acting before was because they HAD to not because it was the cause of the fun. They wanted something to do so they dress up and play a game or party etc. In video games the "dressing up and acting" is done by the computer and the game itself. Its the equivalent of going to a toga party and demanding that everyone take the extra step of only talking in greek. Youd just piss people off... In any case this is a very small percent.
Given what I have said does any of this contradict my argument? No. First of all the issue of continuous fun means that realization is removed because it wears off too fast. Then- all forms of accomplishment which do not involve pvp are removed because players accomplish everything way faster than the challenges can be made by developers. The attempted solution is to introduce time sinks and stretching the game to 200 lvls etc, but these kill the feeling of accomplishment because too much time passes in between gains. Competitors can be set back using the pvp by making the pvp a gamble in the way described by the argument. Note that just leaves griefers, competitors (basically the same, they both want to win competition), socializers and actors. Socialization can be done in any game or at any time, and is not the limiting factor of fun in a game. A fun multiplayer game is more fun then just a chatroom which is what you have if the only thing fun left about a game is socialization. So now all we have left is competitors as able to have fun without break and forever. (if content is still supplied to meet the now slow rate of consumption.)
Its not so much that PVP is an integral part of MMORPG in some magical way. Its just that it can be fun to everyone, and its the only option left for continual fun. And psychologically its no different then anything else you do in a game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
We are talking about a perfect PvP system. You can't argue that a flawed PvP system is always fun nor do I expect anyone will try.
Given we are talking about a perfect system you argument falls over. In a perfect PvE setting (by definition of PvE) the game would be able to generate its own content based on a complex set of rules that react to the actions of players. New quests and areas would develop by themselves adding dynamic content. Your 10X rule is no longer valid as content is created as fast, if not faster than players can use it. In our perfect PvE game combat is dynamic and complex, the AI is so advanced its hard to know if your fighting a computer or a person.
If you want to pull the PvE is PvP card then why are you bothering to argue? In your mind everything is PvP hence even a PvE game can be constantly fun. For you this argument is always true no matter what happens, even in the perfect PvE game that every other person on the planet has fun 100% of the time you will still insist its a PvP game.
No not perfect. Just better than what has been seen so far. A non perfect pvp system can be continually fun. The argument simply says that the pvp system has to be able to slow down the player so that devs can make content as fast as it is used without killing the fun in the process. Thats all it takes to be continually fun.
Yes if such a pve system as you have mentioned existed it could be continually fun. Unfortunately thats not going to exist any time soon. The pvp system I have mentioned is very possible right now. The way you can see this is simply by looking at how painless a friendly game of 1v1 basketball is. Before you ask why basketball isn't continually fun, its because you can't get better easily in basketball. If you aren't the top dog you aren't going to find a way to become it anytime soon. In rpgs you can build your character nonstop and have a clear path towards advancement. A better example is money gambling. Some people do this continually although you might claim its not continuously fun. Thats because most types of real life gambling entail more risk than reward- 1 step forward, 2 steps back. A pvp mmorpg can be just as painless as 1v1 basketball, but as fun as a long winning streak in gambling, but the winning streak in an rpg can be infinitely long without the "house losing money"
The PVE is PVP argument is to combat the argument that someone dislikes all types of PVP. The main argument disqualifies PVE by seperate means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Man, you are killing me with this...
Keep going. This thread should be archived for comdeic purposes...
Geld first of all I don't care if the definition of fun I use in my argument does not match what is in the dictionary.
Ignoring all facts that contradict your argument.
There is no logical rhyme or reason to the definitions in the dictionary.
Actually, there is a logical reason for the definitions in the dictionary, to show the generally understood defininition of the word.
Note that many other feelings do have universal definitions, as pain is defined as caused by injury etc... The only reason fun is any different is because it is often in peoples interests (or so they believe) to hide the actual things they are feeling. Its much less likely but still possible for people to TRY and do the same thing with something so widely KNOWN to be universal as say pain. Someone can be like yeah I'm such a bad ass it doesn't even hurt when I burn my hand off. Everyone knows in this case that the dude is really hurting like hell regardless of weather he tries to hide it or not because that pain is common to ALL people. But somehow when fun is the feeling in question then people can make up whatever they want about it and its ok because its not known by 98% of people what causes the feelings behind fun...
First off you cannot compare a physical feeling such as pain, to an emotional one like fun. Perhaps this is your biggest mistake, a physical reaction such as pain will be experienced in a similar way with all people. An emotional response is quite different. One of the first rules of psychology is to learn a persons emotional reactions and reasons for those reactions before coming up with any sort of diagnosis. Using these reactions you try to determine a psychological profile which will determine their personality. If it were possible to predict EVERYONE's emotional reaction to a particular situation using the same profile, there really would be no use for psychology at all. It really is hard to take a Premise that is based on psychological principles seriously when it violates some of the basic principles by assuming to know everybody's emotional response.
Well guess what, certain things cause feelings that could be called fun in ALL people (namely things like realization and love/respect which might be the same chemically and things like adrenaline rushes etc) and mmorpgs deal with these things on such a basic level that they cannot be interpreted differently by different personality types. All of those statements are things that people might decide aren't the BEST ways to have fun, but if a person chooses to do any of them then we can know by understanding how people work WHAT things about it is fun to them.
Actually, you are quite wrong in this. There is not a single emotional trigger in the world that cannot generate different responses. Because each is based on the situation, and since in your original post you state that true pvp is so unpredictable as to keep a player constantly entertained, and any variation in the situation can change the emotional response to the outcome.
You are basically trying to beat the audience here into the submission of believing that fun is totally subjective without breaking it down into something that would make sense to anyone who might doubt your argument. You can't break it down because the argument is bogus and doesn't make sense to anyone who doesnt misunderstand what I mean by fun.
As you state "doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't misunderstand what I mean by fun" as yet you haven't defined what you mean by fun, you couldn't possibly have, since it's a subjective term. Which means noone could possibly understand what you mean by fun except you. You cannot state that an argument is bogus simply because you do not understand it. Maybe if you took the time to understand the term 'subjective' you may understand the argument.
If something which to you seems like a self explaining truth is not so to others then it is useless without further understanding of why it is true because it does not make sense to anyone but you. If you would take the two seconds to realize what I mean by fun you would realize I was right...
This is quite a funny statement, you constantly have included subjective opinions in your premises, which noone will understand except you (because they are subjective). Yet you try to pass off my argument as a subjective opinion, when all I really said is that the word fun is subjective. I believe most people do understand, and agree, with that statement (including most dictionaries). You are correct in your last statement however. Because if I did realise what you mean by fun (which requires that I actually become you) then I most certainly would think you are correct.
Please try to understand my arguments before replying to them, maybe study a little psychology.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
My argument has nothing to do with forcing people to like anything. If I am correct then people WOULD like the game the argument proposes to make, even if they do not recognize it by looking at this argument. People do not always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them... (as in the feelings they will feel)[/quote]
That's where your wrong. Not everyone WOULD like the game if it was strictly a PvP game. You say people don't always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them, but many experienced MMO player actually DO KNOW. I already know that Horizons ISN'T going to be fun for me just by reading the reviews, forums and game features. For me to actually download the game and try it would be a WASTE of my time, cause I already know it sucks in my eye.
Let me give you a better example. If I take a hammer and hit you upside the head with it and tell you it'll be fun for both of us, no amount of my argument would make you believe that. Would it?!? That's pretty much what your trying to tell us with PvP. It'll be fun if you try it and let it evolve within your mind. No..it's not going to be fun for everything, just like the hammer would be fun against you skull.
Xander
Xander
Xander
Xander
Xander
[quote]There is no overanylization required to see why people don't even know what they are talking about when they say they hate all possible forms of pvp. If they like PVE that contradicts that statement. If they like to joke around they contradict that statement. If they like to compete in any way shape or form then they contradict that statement. [/quote]
Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe you don't know what they HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Seriously, you think that everyone who makes an argument against your claims are clueless and false, yet it quite possible that you may be the clueless one. One man who believes he's right about everything is usually wrong about many things. Think about that for awhile.
Xander
Xander
Xander
Ok. Definitions, the REAL ones change every time a word is used. The word (twenty two) probably has many definitions held in a persons mind. One of them is probably a piddly butt excuse for a gun. Another is a car rim thanks to some rapper. Another is the number twenty two. The latter is most likely the only one you would find in a dictionary. All words have these...
All that is important is that people understand what I am saying, which you can't do if people refuse to anyways. The definition of fun in the dictionary does not give its cause. The definition of pain does. The dictionary is by no means consistent. In fact in order for a dictionary to REALLY be accurate, it would have to be connected to everyones consiousness in the entire world in REAL TIME, and each word would have thousands of definitions. When I say fun, I mean the actual feelings which cause it, and the actual causes of the feelings before that. Show me a word with the definition of what I have just described and I will use that instead. People can make the connection the way it is if they want to. You only brought it up as a silly technicality for lack of anything better to say. It certainly does not "contradict my argument".
The definitions of the dictionary might show the results of some kind of poll or consensus, but as people can be wrong, so can the definitions in the dictionary. That simple.
Next. You only THINK you can't compare physical feelings and emotions. But you are wrong. Emotions have definite causes just as physical feelings do. Note that I have never attempted as you do to try and claim knowledge of psychology without explanation. Everything I say I can explain. You on the otherhand try and claim through heresay that I am wrong. There is a reason why silliness like that isn't allowed in courts.
Anyways which premise are you even talking about? The only psychological premises in my argument are the first three that are listed as such. They are so basic that almost anyone can read them and know they are true.
And your reasoning against universal understanding of people is quite flawed. If people didn't have similarities in both composition and personality (which are tied together) then psychology wouldn't be POSSIBLE at all. Psychologists use universal understanding of people ALONG with information gained about a person to make a profile. Supposed I had a formula for all people that predicted everything they would do. If this were possible we know it would require at least every possible experience a person has had as input. At this point its impossible to obtain that information.
Its really quite easy to see why psychology (or even communication of emotions) would be impossible if emotions were really COMPLETELY subjective. If EVERY time you heard someone say love, it referred to a situation you hated, then you would have learned love to mean hate. When was the last time you heard someone say "I like hate and dislike love". The same goes for fun... If EVERY time someone else said something was fun you hated what it was, then you would learn fun to mean not fun. In order to define these terms to a new person, a common feeling of them is needed. That means in ALL PEOPLE have at least one common occurence of each emotion.
However I don't need to prove that because your claim that fun is COMPLETELY subjective has just been disproved. Never mind the common sense argument that if emotions were completely subjective, no order in the world would be possible. Notice this argument says nothing of people who don't play video games.
Wow you continue on about subjective emotions... I guess you are really trying to put one over on readers here. Let me just take the extra step to completely blow this argument out of the water. Define love without using an experience of it in its definition. Because, you know, any experience you might name might produce a different emotion in the person you are defining it too. Let me save you the trouble of browsing thousands of dictionaries. They all either use common experiences or are circular (love: see affection, affection: see love)
Variations do not change the experience of a situation if the same basic pattern exists which directly causes the involved emotion.
HAHAHA I didn't even read this far yet before making the above argument against subjective emotions, and I notice you start to make it for me. Your right, noone could no what I mean AT ALL by fun if it was totally subjective. But they do have an idea of what Im talking about... Imagine that.
Still talking about the dictionary. Realize you now know the dictionary says something which is logically impossible given past experience. What does that tell you about dictionaries?
Actually everyone else seems to understand what my premises are saying crystal clear, they just don't like them... And I didn't call your argument subjective I'm just stating that you aren't able to break it down into common experiences (what people mean by prove it), which you can't because its wrong.
I have studied plenty of psychology, as should be obvious from my posts. (as opposed to claiming "I R TEH P-SCHOLOGY EXPERT, U R TEH WRONG PHEAR!!!")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
EDIT: Shoot double post... I soz
Xander, your right there are two ways people can try to know ahead of time if something is going to be fun or not. (Note you are trying to contradict people do not ALWAYS know with SOME do know) A) they can understand what causes it like me or
they can use experience combined with generalization.
As the number of experiences approaches infinity, the number of times the persons generalizations are wrong approaches 0. Before that they can always be wrong. Can you think of any other way? Not likely... With A you are affirming my argument. With B they can still be wrong sometimes. (which is what I am claiming is the case, experiences the statement "i hate pvp" is based on = avg of 3 probably) Feel free to choose.
Your last argument is flawed. We both KNOW being hit with a hammer is NOT fun. So the real parallel here would be to say if I hit you with a hammer it wouldn't be fun would it? And the answer is a 100% sure, non subjective HELL NAW SON!!
If you want to make a closer paralell to my argument, tell someone that doesn't like sex, because they had it once with a constapated donkey and it sucked, that they will like it with a hot girl.
Remember I am arguing that something WOULD be fun, not trying to force it to be... Hey.. your next post is complete propaganda after making such a blantantly obvious wrong argument that only sounds like something. DUH if people make arguments like this whose to say that all 27 pages of this thread aren't composed of the same thing... Im persistant cause I'm right....
"You think that everyone else is clueless" I never said this did I? This RIGHT HERE is why so many people continually flame me, not because I am wrong. It makes some people mad that someone thinks they are wrong, so it doesn't matter if they really are right or wrong they will flame away anyways...
Note how half the arguments here use the defense "its just my opinion" An attempted copout... If Im wrong its just my opinion Is what it really means. People want to always have their view respected, even if they put no thought into it whatsoever. It's ok to be wrong sometimes. There are people in life who when you argue with them your going to be wrong alot and they wont be. Because have spent more time thinking about that subject than you. Thats ok. Just make sure whatever you spend YOUR time doing you do well. And even if there was someone who can do everything you can but better, remember no one person can accomplish everything alone. THATS something to think about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Not everyone WOULD like the game if it was strictly a PvP game. You say people don't always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them, but many experienced MMO player actually DO KNOW. I already know that Horizons ISN'T going to be fun for me just by reading the reviews, forums and game features. For me to actually download the game and try it would be a WASTE of my time, cause I already know it sucks in my eye.
He never said 'everyone' would like the game, just gamers who generally appeal to MMORPG's. He also never said 'strictly a PVP game' - he said a game that included PVP which met a certain set of standards that have not yet been implemented by any game as of yet.
You claim many experienced MMO player actually DO KNOW what is going to be fun for them. No matter how much experience someone has in this genre, they haven't experienced the PVP system Kriminal has described. All the arguments against this so far have consisted of claims that relate directly to negative experiences they have had in a previous instance. However in the PVP system at hand would consist of several factors that would prohibit/discourage/prevent behavior that has generally led to such experiences in those past instances. Therefore, these arguments, although directed at "PVP", correlate to factors that neither exist necessarily in PVP, nor the ideal PVP system we are discussing.
You have decided not to play Horizons due to the research you have done on the game, and your understanding of what past experiences have/haven't entertained you. No one here is saying you are wrong for making that judgment. However if you decided it 'sucks' merely because it has crafting (for example), and you hate crafting period, I would guess you had a bad crafting experience in the past. If this were the case, you might be missing out on some serious fun, as Horizons may have a crafting system that is completely unlike the one you utilized when you had the negative experience. Same thing goes with anyone who doesn't like 'PVP'.
Let me give you a better example. If I take a hammer and hit you upside the head with it and tell you it'll be fun for both of us, no amount of my argument would make you believe that. Would it?!? That's pretty much what your trying to tell us with PvP. It'll be fun if you try it and let it evolve within your mind. No..it's not going to be fun for everything, just like the hammer would be fun against you skull.
LOL, this works perfectly with my previous example. Perhaps you really did hit yourself in the head with a hammer last time you crafted! No wonder you hate it so much!! =P Well you may be surprised to find that noobs get construction hats and rubber-plated hammers for their first 5 levels in the new system.
The real problem though, is that you compare a basic concept, such as PVP, to a specific, negative event, where as it should instead be compared to another basic concept, such as crafting, or construction, where this negative event might occur. In this case, as in most, the potential for negative experiences can usually be avoided by taking small precautions and/or making minor changes to the system. Thx.
Hey Kriminal! The dog food factory called, they want their horse carcass back.
Are you done tenderizing it yet?
______________________________
I just bought the game, is beta over yet?
------- END TRANSMISSION
I still don't agree that slowing content consumption via PvP is the only way to make the game continually fun. Your failure to discover a PvE solution does not mean there isn't one. Prove to me that its not possible to make a game with evolving PvE content with todays technology. It could be done. Don't bother telling me it couldn't unless you can find me some documented proof that it can't.
Change your statement to "one of the most cost effective ways to make a mmorpg continually fun is to base some elements on PvP". That I agree with that 100%, but don't tell me its the only way.
I can think of some ways you could use a computer to generate maps and populate it with monsters based on a good rule set that could then be quickly enchanced by world builders. Ever played Diablo? Anarchy online? Games are doing it in a limited way now, its not that many more steps to the next level. The tools could generate all the npcs, set up factions within the zone and just need a world builder to clean it up and add custom dialog and flesh out the factions with some quests.
Some people think jumping out of planes is fun, while some find it frightning. Therefore, those chemicals must be causing different reactions. This must mean that people must not all have fun in the same BASIC way.
I agree with you that people play games because games revolve around the idea of competition, which you take as your basic premise that all people should like PvP in MMORPGs. RTS games, such as Warcraft, revolve around players going against other players in competition. Does this mean that everybody should find RTS games fun? I for one don't. Then you have FPS, such as Unreal Tournament, which also revolves around players pitted against other players. In this case, I do find it fun. These are examples of PvP. So, do I like other games that are not PvP. I found single-player RPGs such as the whole Final Fantasy series, Ultima series, Deus Ex, and others quite enjoyable as PvE. I found Neverwinter Nights more enjoyable as a single-player game then being an online game.
Yet, I know this is not your argument. Your argument is that MMORPGs need PvP to be continually fun. Like in my previous post, I can see where you are coming from. But, a lot of developers opt to continually add content to increase the fun and longevity of the game. This is where your argument is. It doesn't matter how much you have studied in psychology if you don't have the dollar figures or a successful game such as EQ to back up which method is better suited to keep interest in a game for a long period of time. There's a reason why a lot of games try to emulate EQ. It's because it works. EQ does have PvP but it's not centered around it and majority of people playing EQ do not partake in PvP. Just because the chemicals in your brain might be telling you it's fun, other people's chemicals are telling them something different, just like the people jumping out of airplanes. So, it is subjective and can't be bolied down to chemical reactions.
I have NEVER heard of a person who has gone skydiving and NOT liked it. 99.9% of people who DON'T like skydiving, HAVEN'T DONE IT. They say they wouldn't like it because their of past experiences with falling (like falling off their bed at night) or learned perceptions such as watching someone fall and die on TV.
To say that fun and emotion are not caused by the structure and chemistry of the brain is a complete falsehood. EVERYTHING that happens in this world is pure physics. Even though our brains are very complex, and there can be a lot of factors involved to every action/reaction, it is definitely possible to map these things out and make every single person completely predictable in any environment. Do you think you have a quasi-physical SOUL that determines what's fun for you? No, it's your human brain that is VERY similar to all these other human brains in the world, brains we have studied for hundreds of years, brains we have interviewed, observed, tested and disected. Will everyone have fun doing the exact same thing? No. But we are talking about MMORPG players here. If you enjoy PVE, then you should also enjoy the right kind of PVP. Because PVE is still PVP in the long run, since the NPC's you encounter act according to the instructions of the dev who programmed them. The reason people play multi-player games is to deal directly with people, not indirectly, as with single-player games. Wouldn't everyone rather fight a monster who has a complex personality and intelligence, rather than a mindless robot that does the same thing every time? This is the epitomy of monotony which equals BORING. PVP is the same as PVE except there is more variety and challenge. And we aren't talking about any PVP that has been done so far, we are talking about an enhanced system which prevents the types of negative experiences that have caused people to have poor conceptions of PVP.
Please god please, help these poor people understand. We are not comparing apples to oranges here!!! We are comparing apples to apples. Yes some people don't like oranges, and some people don't like apples, but the people who like apples...LIKE APPLES! And what is being offered at this time is the idea of apples that don't rot over time. Isn't it safe to say that EVERYONE who likes apples would prefer ones that stayed edible and tasty for a longer period of time?? The only people who WOULDN'T like this are the people who like to eat rotten apples. OK, CASE CLOSED, THANKS!
Ok, let's use another example instead of skydiving, let's use going to large parties. Some people will think the party is fun because they like being around many people. There are some people who hate large crowds and would consider the party not fun. My point is there is no basic way of having fun. Of course people who are afraid of heights would not jump out of a perfectly good airplane for fun, because in their minds it wouldn't be fun.
Everything is boiled down to physics, but how can you go down to the atomic level and describe fun? There are different levels of abstraction to everything and certain things need to be looked at higher levels than at the base levels of physics.
And, I'm not saying that fun and emotion are not caused by the structure and chemistry of the brain. I'm stating that the structure and chemical reactions react differently in different people. We aren't clones of one another. So, until you do a chemical analysis of everybody who wants to play a MMORPG and then design the game around that, fun is subjective.
Ok. Definitions, the REAL ones change every time a word is used. The word (twenty two) probably has many definitions held in a persons mind. One of them is probably a piddly butt excuse for a gun. Another is a car rim thanks to some rapper. Another is the number twenty two. The latter is most likely the only one you would find in a dictionary. All words have these...
All that is important is that people understand what I am saying, which you can't do if people refuse to anyways. The definition of fun in the dictionary does not give its cause. The definition of pain does. The dictionary is by no means consistent. In fact in order for a dictionary to REALLY be accurate, it would have to be connected to everyones consiousness in the entire world in REAL TIME, and each word would have thousands of definitions. When I say fun, I mean the actual feelings which cause it, and the actual causes of the feelings before that. Show me a word with the definition of what I have just described and I will use that instead. People can make the connection the way it is if they want to. You only brought it up as a silly technicality for lack of anything better to say. It certainly does not "contradict my argument".
The definitions of the dictionary might show the results of some kind of poll or consensus, but as people can be wrong, so can the definitions in the dictionary. That simple.
Next. You only THINK you can't compare physical feelings and emotions. But you are wrong. Emotions have definite causes just as physical feelings do. Note that I have never attempted as you do to try and claim knowledge of psychology without explanation. Everything I say I can explain. You on the otherhand try and claim through heresay that I am wrong. There is a reason why silliness like that isn't allowed in courts.
Anyways which premise are you even talking about? The only psychological premises in my argument are the first three that are listed as such. They are so basic that almost anyone can read them and know they are true.
And your reasoning against universal understanding of people is quite flawed. If people didn't have similarities in both composition and personality (which are tied together) then psychology wouldn't be POSSIBLE at all. Psychologists use universal understanding of people ALONG with information gained about a person to make a profile. Supposed I had a formula for all people that predicted everything they would do. If this were possible we know it would require at least every possible experience a person has had as input. At this point its impossible to obtain that information.
Its really quite easy to see why psychology (or even communication of emotions) would be impossible if emotions were really COMPLETELY subjective. If EVERY time you heard someone say love, it referred to a situation you hated, then you would have learned love to mean hate. When was the last time you heard someone say "I like hate and dislike love". The same goes for fun... If EVERY time someone else said something was fun you hated what it was, then you would learn fun to mean not fun. In order to define these terms to a new person, a common feeling of them is needed. That means in ALL PEOPLE have at least one common occurence of each emotion.
However I don't need to prove that because your claim that fun is COMPLETELY subjective has just been disproved. Never mind the common sense argument that if emotions were completely subjective, no order in the world would be possible. Notice this argument says nothing of people who don't play video games.
Wow you continue on about subjective emotions... I guess you are really trying to put one over on readers here. Let me just take the extra step to completely blow this argument out of the water. Define love without using an experience of it in its definition. Because, you know, any experience you might name might produce a different emotion in the person you are defining it too. Let me save you the trouble of browsing thousands of dictionaries. They all either use common experiences or are circular (love: see affection, affection: see love)
Variations do not change the experience of a situation if the same basic pattern exists which directly causes the involved emotion.
HAHAHA I didn't even read this far yet before making the above argument against subjective emotions, and I notice you start to make it for me. Your right, noone could no what I mean AT ALL by fun if it was totally subjective. But they do have an idea of what Im talking about... Imagine that.
Still talking about the dictionary. Realize you now know the dictionary says something which is logically impossible given past experience. What does that tell you about dictionaries?
Actually everyone else seems to understand what my premises are saying crystal clear, they just don't like them... And I didn't call your argument subjective I'm just stating that you aren't able to break it down into common experiences (what people mean by prove it), which you can't because its wrong.
I have studied plenty of psychology, as should be obvious from my posts. (as opposed to claiming "I R TEH P-SCHOLOGY EXPERT, U R TEH WRONG PHEAR!!!")
First off, you have not disproven the dictionary definition of fun, really you have reinforced it. Of course the word has different meanings because of it's subjective nature. You actually state your definition of fun, finally. Which is not actually anyone else view of fun at all. You are talking about the emotional triggers which cause the reaction of fun in ANY human being. The reason I am catching you out for using the wrong word is because it is what many of the people who responded to you have been talking about. But you always respond by stating they don't understand your definition of fun. They were actually not wrong in their posts, you simply were using the wrong word, the word fun doesn't accurately describe what you intend to project.
Now I have no idea where you got the idea from my last post that I said fun is COMPLETELY subjective. Maybe you should read it again, it merely states that the word IS subjective, which is undeniably true. Of course there are people who share personality traits, which is what makes psychology possible. The ablility to group people under a psychological profile. I state that people have different responses to different emotional triggers, and you respond by saying that not EVERYONE has different emotional responses. Well yes that is true, but doesn't disprove the original statement, which remains true. As you know, psychology would not exist without emotional variation.
As for the last post, I actually do know someone who experiences pure terror from skydiving, only having done it once, in tandem. They would never do it again, as the experience was far from 'fun'. I also know someone who experiences nothing but GUILT after having defeated another human player in a PVP match. They would feel bad for that person, as he/she has to undergo some considerable effort to regain their characters fromer strength. Of course this persons feelings having lost a PVP match are also negative. I guess all I'm trying to get across to you is the fact that there are ALWAYS going to be different responses to the same emotional triggers. Argue that fact all you want, but it has been proven time and time again to be true. One of the reasons psychology is such a fascinating subject is the unpredictability of the human brain. Trying to predict someones reaction without having first studied their behavior to determine their individual psychological profile will almost always result in failure. Don't try to argue that there is an emotional trigger that will generate the same response in ALL human beings, such a trigger does not exist.
I would ask that you try to come up with any event that causes the same emotional reaction in all human beings. I will always be able to come up with an exception.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
Prove, disprove the dictionary? What are you talking about geld? The dictionary does not claim to be some kind of psychological authourity when it comes to how it defines words. Thats why different dictionaries have different definitions...
AND geld you misunderstood my argument. Its not SOME people have similar emotional responses to the same emotional triggers. Its ALL people have the same emotional responses to SOME emotional triggers. That means saying "fun is subjective" does not contradict my argument. If this were not the case, some people would never be able to learn the definitions of "fun" "love" etc. as I had just pointed out. Thats why dictionaries define these terms with common experiences of them... Yet there is noone who is not able to learn these terms. You might need to take a second to think about this to realize that its really true.
An example of this is being loved. Am I talking about the emotion itself or a trigger that causes it? I'm talking about BOTH. Because there is a basic emotional trigger that ALWAYS causes this emotion in all people. Without it we wouldn't be able to communicate emotions to one another. People don't always feel loved at the same times. But everyone has the same emotion when they feel loved. When I say that you think of things like people expressing gratitude towards you respecting you for an accomplishment or one of another few. Those are basic things that are common to everyone.
The only place for different interpretation is after this. Maybe people have a different idea of an accomplishment. But there is only a FEW of these basic triggers. All experiences that cause any emotion at all are funneled into one of these few. That means if someone is doing something, there is only a FEW reasons why they might be doing it. And its easy to figure out what these basic triggers are and when they might come into play.
I don't say anything about people that play sports rather than mmorpgs.
So you say someone feels guilty for winning pvp. Ill grant that my argument requires a setback. Let me ask something though. Does this person feel guilty for having a nice car and people paying attention to him. Or for telling a funny joke. They all setback other people. Winning in a sport?
The difference between pvp and these situations is simple. He doesn't care if someone else tells a funny joke and people pay attention to that person for a minute, so he doesn't feel guilty for telling one himself. So if the game made it so that he no longer got mad when he dies in pvp, then he wouldn't feel guilty about winning. The golden rule is the basic trigger behind guilt.
People that play mmorpgs can only experience a couple basic triggers that might be considered fun. Realization, love/respect, fight or flight. The reason for participating in pvp is the exact same for the reason for participating in pve. love/respect for an accomplishment.
I might grant you that I need to add a premise for guilt (which I just did) and any other bad emotion which I might have left out (Can't think of any other, Anger is in the argument)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Give me your lunch money.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -