imho it cant make you happy to hunt just the same respawns and watch you statistics growing,if you like this,then you shouldnt play online and you can play diablo at you home...the charmy thing about mmorpg is you can cooparate and communicate and fight with other PEOPLE
Originally posted by Shimi imho it cant make you happy to hunt just the same respawns and watch you statistics growing,if you like this,then you shouldnt play online and you can play diablo at you home...the charmy thing about mmorpg is you can cooparate and communicate and fight with other PEOPLE
I agree with you completely, however this is not what we are debating....
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Im not mixing up anything.... I am saying opinion because people use opinion to talk about things to which there is a definite answer to... regardless of what the dictionary says. When they do that they give a new definition to opinion to which I am refering. In case we forgot thats WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT... you were trying to defends someone "opinion" of a factual situation... Then you try and tell ME that opinions can't regard factual situations... LOL
Your a idiot plain and simple. When you prove a opinion wrong or right it then becomes FACT. Do you not understand that? If there is a clear cut answer for a opinion it no longer exists as a opinion, it becomes FACT. I never stated you couldnt use facts to support opinions. I did state tho that opinions can not be wrong. When they are proven to be right or wrong they then become facts. Understand yet? You want a example?
EX.Ford is better than Chevy since Ford has been around longer than Chevy = (Opinion). There you go, useing factual based information to try and prove a opinion, but it still doesn't make my opinion right or wrong.
Originally posted by Shimi imho it cant make you happy to hunt just the same respawns and watch you statistics growing,if you like this,then you shouldnt play online and you can play diablo at you home...the charmy thing about mmorpg is you can cooparate and communicate and fight with other PEOPLE
Yes it can make you happy if that is what you like. Grouping with friends to tackle some PvE mobs, to some is more exciting than fighting PC controlled characters. People like different things. What one person finds fun another will not, and that is their opinion on why they dont like certain types of games.
Now who the hell are you to tell people how to spend their money? Its that attitude why people in the PvE/PvP communities cant get along. NO where in MMORPG does it say that someone has to fight PC controlled characters (unless the game is designed strictly for PvP). It does say Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game tho. Who is to say how people play their role within the game?
---------------------------- Omol da'Ox The Blooded
Funny thing though, some people go a whole life without actually killing a single person, quite a few of thoose are indeed happy with their life and they have probably lived it for far longer then any mmorpg has existed.
See, in real life to people collect stuff, they make friends, they buy uber toys and gears, not once have I thought "Wooa, this BMW is way cool, wonder if I should drive into a crowd with it so they can see how kewl it is".
The argument that you need to kill people, game or no game, to show your worth tells a horrible tale about you as a person.
The statement, "but this is a GAME" hold no bearing what so ever as every aspect of human life is replicated and strived for in all games, may be that the storyline behind it is difference or the world in wich it takes place. Yet it displays the full array of human emotion and actions, most often our online game become a substitute for our real one, we live it like we would like our real one to be.
Again, many many people around the world live happy lifes for years maybe even without hurting someone, hehe, imagine that...
And to me, all your premises could fit this statement as well:
"Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG can NOT be PVP based. - simplified"
And to call it simplified is a bit of stretch really, was kinda hard to make heads or tails on what you meant.
Be well
Umbrood
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ramonski7 First the basis for YOUR whole arguement is in order for a MMORPG to be continually FUN (a player has to want to continually do it) it HAS to be PvP BASED. Is this correct? Tell me because it's silly of me to continually try to argue your point when your are not clearly sticking to a point to begin with. Now help me outline your post please: continually fun = happy player happy player = ability to interact infinitely(or the illusion of it) within a PvP based mmorpg PvP based MMORPG = a system that has very minor flaws (for maximum appeal) and very limited in restrictions (to remain continually fun) Now before I go on please inform me as to how long continually means to you. Because I cannot continually argue a point with you unless I know exactly where you stand. And while you're at it throw in the meaning of fun for you as well. In order for this to be a debate you have to stand your ground. I refuse to respond to your premises: 1. Because I already did so (hence the revising). 2. You've failed to solidify any atempt I make to pin-point your stance. *BTW I just read your third revision of your premises and it just goes to reiterate my statement of how you continue to dance around the topic... **Just in case you didn't catch it the first time around, my LIST was reasons why some players choose NOT to participate in PvP, NOT what PvP should consist of: My statement: Now about your stand on players views on why PvP is not fun: 1-8 7) No content for some (content by definition means to be satisfied or did you know that....) Your statement: 7) What are you talking about... I thought you were making a sad attempt to list traits that PVP had to be PVP
The first statement I quoted seems to be one of the main difficulties people are having in disputing this argument. That is not the BASIS for my argument. That is the conclusion. The premises are the basis for the argument. If you agree with all the premises, and the argument is valid (THAT IS the premises nessecitate the conclusion) then the conclusion is true undeniably.
I would be more than happy to describe what I am using as definition of those things. (Not in the sense of what the dictionary says about them, which is just a tool used to limit language from changing to much) I certainly do not remember you asking for this before.
Continually as I use it in the argument does not exactly refer to a length of time. It more refers to there not being periods of time in between fun when the game gets boring. Any MMORPG has a possibility of being fun in the future since the devs might release more content (even if the new stuff lasts 2 seconds flat)
Fun as I use it (which one of previous unessecary premises stated) is any one of the distinct feelings a person can have which feels good. Love/Respect, Taste, Realization, fight or flight, then like non external stimuli related... recreation drugs or other effects of say sex which can go all over your body... These are my ways of referring to them because I don't remember which chemicals (saratonin, dopamine, noradrenaline whatever) cause what feelings or if even some of these are the same, and my understanding of it came from studying people first and reading psychology second. But a WIDE range of events which are different externally not only cause a reception/slowed decay of the same chemicals, but are essentially the same to your brain. For example, you listen to music(brain recognizes patterns in the music), figure something out, chill out in nature (maybe others related here) thats realization. Your up to bat with bases loaded thats fight or flight i believe, and then if you come through love/respect. You have sex with someone thats love/respect, realization, fight or flight (at first), possibly smell/taste and non stimuli related internal chems...
Anyways to get back on the subject my old premise 1 that wasn't nessecary to the argument was supposed to be dealing with fun itself. (love/respect) The other feelings that might be considered fun can't be controlled or sustained at least by the developer of an mmorpg...
My revision was simply to make the argument simpler... The first few arguments were to try and explain one of the later premises, but that premise is apparently more easily accepted than its explanation so the using its explanation as a premise is not much use.. There is no dancing around the topic going on, the premises nessecitate the conclusion and are all pretty much common knowledge...
And Your list was a list of things that have nothing to do with pvp. No I did not know the definition of content was "to be satisfied" oO Here I was thinking it had to do with stuff being held....
Anyways let me add this from another thread since its another central problem you are having trouble understanding.
What exactly do you think pvp is? When you talk about pve, in a sense you are STILL talking about pvp. A person designed the program code behind the mobs you fight.. What about tabletop rpgs? A person has to directly control the mobs here... In fact how do you KNOW for absolutely sure, that the mobs in those games are not, or sometimes are not controlled by people? You don't. The only real difference between PVE and PVP is that PVE is designed to let you win....
From this idea alone, it can be said that ANY game cannot exist without some form of either pvp or pure luck gambling (the only 2 things which can allow an uncertaine outcome, and the skill aspect of skill dependent gambling is pvp against the designer of the game)... and pure luck gambling is not fun unless you equate the thing you can get through it to love/respect
Originally posted by Papa_Sody Your trying to tell me that if I want to I can tell myself that shooting myself in the foot is going to be fun, and that sex is not. LOL Actually, that's exactly what I am saying. There are people who think that being hurt is a form of enjoyment. While that may not be the norm for the rest of us, for them, it's how they get off. Regardless of how they came to feel that way, it is still a FEELING and cannot be disputed, since feelings are opinions and opinions can not be wrong. You may not like the way they feel, but you don't have the right to tell they they are wrong and try to force them to feel the way you think they should. Any attempt to enforce your opinion of fun or pleasure on anyone else is verging on the kinds of things Hilter tried. You're welcome to try, but the world will not tolerate it. Im not mixing up anything.... I am saying opinion because people use opinion to talk about things to which there is a definite answer to... regardless of what the dictionary says. When they do that they give a new definition to opinion to which I am refering. In case we forgot thats WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT... you were trying to defends someone "opinion" of a factual situation... Then you try and tell ME that opinions can't regard factual situations... LOL
Actually, you're attempting to define YOUR opinon as a fact. There is no definite answer to what fun is, you have to ask the individual player. Your opinion is, to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based. This is not a fact, this is an opinion.Your opinion. This can not be proven, or disproved, by facts. Current evidence would seem to indicate that many MMORPGs are continually successful (i.e. fun enough for other people to continue playing for years at a time) while NOT meeting your requirement of being PvP based. This does not disprove your opinion. This merely indicates that a great number of people find those MMORPGs to be fun and continue to play, dispite that MMORPG being non-PvP based. Because, for those people, PvP is not fun, or they can find fun in non-PvP aspects of a MMORPG. Again, I state, I am willing to accept your premise, to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based, because I realize that for YOU, in your opinion, a "fun" MMORPG must be PvP based. Your premise, to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based, does NOT hold true for ME, because in my opinion, "fun" is not based on PvP. In other words, I am agreeing to disagree. You, however, seem to lack the maturity to accept this, and are still attempting to sway my view. Short of brain implants, hynotizing me, brain-washing or some other form of mind control, this simply isn't going to happen.
Wrong. People that like pain have been trained to feel love and respect directly after pain, because of experiencing it. They don't experience the actual pain as you would feeling loved. No people cannot change the effects of the chemicals in their brain that cause different feelings and make them backwards... If you don't believe me go ask one of them. Next...
The next paragraph is just meaningless propaganda... next
No I am not trying to define my opinion as fact. I am trying to explain that the thing you are calling my opinion is regarding a factual situation and is an observation of that factual situation. And my observation of that factual situation is right.
If fun is determined by a person than how can psychologists perscribe drugs to *make* people have more of it? According to you they can't. Yet they do... and they work...
Ill grant you that a persons nueral network (personality) can be twisted around in all kinds of ways to interpret stimulii differently... to a limited degree. this doesn't have a huge bearing on my argument or even what I had as premise 1 before. If a person is playing a video game then they are working towards a feeling of self and/or possible external respect by accomplishing the goals in it. If a person likes to play soccer they are working towards the same, but by playing soccer...
My argument once again says nothing about success. It says fun. Fun and success of the game will come together more the longer the mmorpg market exists. People can only choose between what exists so far.
Once again, you don't know what pvp is. Read what I posted in the other thread to you or at the end of my response to ramonski in the same post. In case your too lazy, the main point is the only difference between pvp and pve to you is that PVE is designed to let you win...
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just pointing out to you that the things you say to try and contradict my argument make no sense. And by the way, "to be continually fun a mmorpg must be pvp based" is the conclusion of the argument not a premise.
Originally posted by Anofalye As for Premise 1, I strongly disagree. Company need to focus their hardwork on the customers they want to reach, but it can never be replaced by anything...all the rest are tricks to gain time, like fast talking. 10 hours for 5 programmers that bring 1 hour of game content for 1 million customer is not a bad deal...50 hours vs 1 million hours...and we suppose none of those customer play more then 1 hour there, I love farming myself and I certainly spend more time in a place like Velketor Labyrinth myself alone then all the programmers staff spend when they design the zone, all together...I love challenge as well, but not all the time, if I play 80 hours a week on a game, I want some smoother curves and some harders. With 300 days played in EQ(24 hours days)...yes, I lack a RL. *shrug*
Well I think you are wrong here. If you think about it, you are basically claiming that the design of the game has no effect on how long it is fun, as long as the company interacts with the customers or provides more content. This excludes the possibility of single player games being fun, much less having any replayability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Ramonski7 To Kriminal99 I couldn't wait for your response sir, so pick a meaning please: Main Entry: 1fun Pronunciation: 'f&n Function: noun Etymology: English dialect fun to hoax, perhaps alteration of Middle English fonnen, from fonne dupe 1:what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically : playful often boisterous action or speech <full of fun> 2:a mood for finding or making amusement <all in fun> 3 a: AMUSEMENT, ENJOYMENT <sickness takes all the fun out of life> b:derisive jest: SPORT, RIDICULE <a figure of fun> 4:violent or excited activity or argument <let a snake loose in the classroom; then the fun began> synonymsFUN, JEST, SPORT, GAME, PLAY mean action or speech that provides amusement or arouses laughter. FUN usually implies laughter or gaiety but may imply merely a lack of serious or ulterior purpose <played cards just for fun>. JEST implies lack of earnestness in what is said or done and may suggest a hoaxing or teasing <hurt by remarks said only in jest>. SPORT applies especially to the arousing of laughter against someone <teasing begun in sport led to anger>. GAME is close to SPORT, and often stresses mischievous or malicious fun <made game of their poor relations>. PLAY stresses the opposition to earnest without implying malice or mischief <pretended to strangle his brother in play>. These are the 2 I have chosen for this topic: 1 : what provides amusement or enjoyment 3 a: AMUSEMENT, ENJOYMENT Now armed with this knowledge please answer the following questions TRUE or FALSE: 1) To be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based. 2) What is fun to any person is a definite fact that cannot be changed. 3) What is fun and not fun is not dictated by the experiencing person. If you answer false to any of these questions then sir your whole arguement is false by definition of the word fun. Now if all of the definitions of fun are applied to your statement it STILL would be FALSE because of one word: must. By definition it means something required and a MMORPG does not require a PvP based system to be continually fun in all its forms. And do not try to rebuttal my response with excuses of clarifying or revising your original statement. If you do then you admit that your original statement in itself IS false thus the need to doctor it. False opinions/statements have no bearing in debates concerning logic /emote Ramonski prepares a steaming hot plate of crow just for Kriminal99
Sorry ramonski, people do not use words with the definitions straight out of the dictionary. The dictionary is simply a tool to limit evolution of language between peoples that are supposed to be in the same culture, as the definition of a word changes every time someone uses it. For example in our argument, when you say pvp you are referring to something totally different than what I am referring to, because you think it nessecitates traits which it does not. Which is what I have been trying to tell you all along.
In the case of fun you are thinking of what someone answers when you ask them if they are having fun. I am speaking of the actual distinct feelings that are likely, but not ABSOLUTELY for certain going to make them answer a certain way (as they can say whatever they want to).
Ill bet you really thought you had something there. Let me answer your questions anyways just for "fun".
1) Depends on the definition being thought of for all the words being used
2) same
3) same
Now what I could do if I had a dictionary and a WHOLE lot of spare time is to construct my argument with the exact same reasoning using words where the definition written in the dictionary corresponds to the words I used. Fun would be replaced by "feeling good or pleasant"
If a person wanted to claim then that feeling good was not fun and feeling like shit was fun then they could. But that really wouldn't change anything would it?
Originally posted by Shimi imho it cant make you happy to hunt just the same respawns and watch you statistics growing,if you like this,then you shouldnt play online and you can play diablo at you home...the charmy thing about mmorpg is you can cooparate and communicate and fight with other PEOPLE
And you can do this while fighting other PEOPLE As opposed to just static AI mobs created by other PEOPLE designed to let you win. respawn camping has nothing to do with pvp... next
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Omol Your a idiot plain and simple. When you prove a opinion wrong or right it then becomes FACT. Do you not understand that? If there is a clear cut answer for a opinion it no longer exists as a opinion, it becomes FACT. I never stated you couldnt use facts to support opinions. I did state tho that opinions can not be wrong. When they are proven to be right or wrong they then become facts. Understand yet? You want a example? EX.Ford is better than Chevy since Ford has been around longer than Chevy = (Opinion). There you go, useing factual based information to try and prove a opinion, but it still doesn't make my opinion right or wrong. Now who the hell are you to tell people how to spend their money? Its that attitude why people in the PvE/PvP communities cant get along. NO where in MMORPG does it say that someone has to fight PC controlled characters (unless the game is designed strictly for PvP). It does say Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game tho. Who is to say how people play their role within the game?
Aww poor baby... did we get our wittle feewings hut? I sozzy...
Actually your wrong. Just because we dont yet know what the truth about something is doesn't mean that an opinion about it can't be right or wrong. IT IS either right or wrong we just don't know which yet. The example you gave was of something to which there isn't a definite answer, because the definition of better is not clear. (definition as in what causes it not what mr. dictionary says) The definition of fun isn't totally 100% clear in this sense either really, but it is used almost exclusively to refer to things that "feel good" to someone. And what feels good to someone can be explained and IS a factual situation. However people can still claim they are not having fun when they feel good, and claim they are having fun when they feel bad.
Confused about who your talking to at the end but I think its me since your jumping up and down. The only way people even know the difference between PVE and PVP is that in PVE they consistently win. Thats the only difference to the player... Im not trying to tell anyone what to do. Im trying to design a game that will make players "feel good" to play it.
Originally posted by Umbrood Funny thing though, some people go a whole life without actually killing a single person, quite a few of thoose are indeed happy with their life and they have probably lived it for far longer then any mmorpg has existed. See, in real life to people collect stuff, they make friends, they buy uber toys and gears, not once have I thought "Wooa, this BMW is way cool, wonder if I should drive into a crowd with it so they can see how kewl it is". The argument that you need to kill people, game or no game, to show your worth tells a horrible tale about you as a person. The statement, "but this is a GAME" hold no bearing what so ever as every aspect of human life is replicated and strived for in all games, may be that the storyline behind it is difference or the world in wich it takes place. Yet it displays the full array of human emotion and actions, most often our online game become a substitute for our real one, we live it like we would like our real one to be. Again, many many people around the world live happy lifes for years maybe even without hurting someone, hehe, imagine that... And to me, all your premises could fit this statement as well: "Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG can NOT be PVP based. - simplified" And to call it simplified is a bit of stretch really, was kinda hard to make heads or tails on what you meant. Be well Umbrood
When you defeat someone at pvp they don't fall over dead at their keyboard in a pool of blood. When you beat someone in basketball they don't fall over dead. When you kill an AI mob its creator doesn't fall over dead. When you make a joke everyone who can't think of anything funny to say doesn't fall over dead. When you buy a BMW and show it off at a nightclub everyone who can't afford one doesnt fall over dead. Every time you compete with someone the loser doesn't die. I think my point is clear.
Your argument that games are not just games, if organized like mine (so as not to hide what I am about to point out) claims its conclusion as a premise. You say I can't claim a game is a game because games are not just games. And both your conclusion and itself as a premise are wrong.
Games are designed to let people have fun not around reality. There is no permanent death in mmorpg. There is no sex in games so that you feel it in reality. And no, video games can not cause the full array of human emotion. You talk pretty though.
If you don't even understand the premises, I fail to see how you could be attempting to dispute them...
Next...
PS mods sorry for powerposting, I keep hitting the wrong button and not realizing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Ok, this has reached the point where it is pointless to discuss it any further. NOW he is trying to say that any form of competition in a game is PvP, even if it is just comparing stats/gear, kill ratio, advancement or actual PvP combat.
He is saying any time 2 people get together and do anything competitive, that is PvP.
And yet, ALL of his premises are written around the idea of PvP COMBAT. The gamble of interacting in a competative way against another player where one risks losing something. He has rewritten his premises a couple times, and included some guidelines and such, but he has not yet changed his original statement. Going by this, he AGAIN needs to rewrite his statement.
To be continually fun for the kind of people who like MMORPGs, a MMORPG must have a way for people to interact or compete with each other in various forms.
Which is what every MMORPG has. If it's a PvP COMBAT based game, people will compare kills, fight each other, etc. If it's PvE combat based, people will compare advancement, equipment, stats, fights won, MOBs killed, whatever.
He is once again comparing apples to oranges. His premises are trying to support a PvP combat based game and his arguments support the idea that any interaction is PvP. He is counterdicting himself. And I refuse to participate in this any longer.
No, don't stop. Keep posting simple arguments that he posts paragraphs to combat. It is fun fictional-nonsense-reading.
Reading how dumb his argument is, is the fun of the entire thread. Seeing ideas just whoosh over his head, and watching him just disregard valid arguments is hilarious.
This guy is a riot. If he could find night clubs full of MMORPG gamers, he could take this act on the road.
Aww poor baby... did we get our wittle feewings hut? I sozzy
No you didnt hurt my feeling. Sorry to make you feel bad tho since I know you been trying. No sense in trying to argue with someone that has no clue what the hell he is argueing about. You dont have the brains god gave a retarded piss ant.
---------------------------- Omol da'Ox The Blooded
I understand this topic has become somewhat emotional for some of the posters , in which respect it should no longer persist. For sake of pure curiousity I have read the entire post and I do not wish to offend anyone.
BUT:
Kriminal is right in the respect that EVERYTHING can be broken down logically. Everything. Even religion and politics, which are topics that can be infinitely argued, can be broken down into logic. There is no possible way to argue against logic without eventually failing due to scientifically proven fact and the infinate existance of corrections that logic provides.
On The Flipside:
It is easy to create a statement and dub it as logic. This is a tool consitantly used in many debates succesfully as any logical human being naturally wouldn't oppose logic itself. For example, "Magic Johnson is actually the all around best player in the NBA, for he still holds the highest all around stats for any one basketball player." This statement is completely false. For someone who studies basketball or is highly familiar with the related statistics, the idea of the previous statement could be easily spotted as incorrect. For one that is unfamiliar with basketball but has a liking for another player in which they felt/thought was the best basketball player will lose the argument in most cases due to lack of knowledge. Some may not even argue the idea itself at all because the statement came across as fact, not opinion. Kriminal has obviously studied humanology, physiology, psycology, or all of the above. In this case he either backs his ideas with actual fact or disguises them with statements that come across as factual.
Recommendation:
To succesfully argue your opinions/facts why not approach Kriminal's ideas in the form in which he originally suggested. Oppose the ideas with proven fact. If no one can do this, his ideas are ultimately correct.
Why Logic?:
Because logic is similar to matter, while it is not the makeup of all things it can be used to explain them. I can pick a random situation in my own life, one after the other, or even respond to another person's random sitation and prove this idea over and over again to be completely factual.
For Example (true story):
I knew a boy named Mike who hated black people. When initially questioned about is dislike he answered with the idea that "Black people are ignorant. All they care about is necklaces and clothes and rap music and hurting other people." To Mike, this statement was fact. It was his opinion, but through his own observations and evaluations it was proven to himself therefor he accepted it as fact. Logically, you cannot solve this idea by accepted what has been said. It is necessary to pry for more information. Had Mike ever met a black person? "Yeah. Three black people. I was walking in the mall and three of them pushed me for no reason and called me names. The only other black people I've seen is the stupid one's in the rap videos talking about killing other people's mothers and money and stuff like that." Here is the logic. The fact behind the opinioin. Mike does not dislike black people because all black people are ignorant. Mike dislikes black people because he has been mistreated by black people. The only black people he had ever known had treated him in an ignorant manner and those he sees express themselves in an ignorant way. Two years later Mike's favorite music is rap music. Mike likes black people. Why? Because I am black. I showed Mike that not all black people are ignorant and mean and selfish. Logically, his feelings changed.
In Conclusion:
Most feelings can ultimately be explained by logic after asking the simple question, "Why?" Why demands reason. Reason is logical. Knowledge is power.
An MMORPG must be PvP for many because the world surrounding that MMORPG is predictable, while PvP is often not. It adds a dynamic element to the game that would otherwise not be there.
When AI makes NPC indistinguishable from PC, then PvP would be unnecessary.
But if AI could make an NPC indistinguishable from PC, then an MMORPG would not be necessary either.
If you examine the above axioms, you'll come to a proof by contradiction.
Well , after playing Everquest for several years in a non-PvP server, I must admit that a tad of PvP in the Arenas were giving me that "bit" of fun that I needed in this predictable all friendly ( cough ) server.
We must agree with any opinions emitted. Taste and colors are not a matter of discussion, we are all different and that's why this world is not boring
When creating an MMORPG you have several choices :
- No PvP at all
- PvP on some servers
- Non-PvP servers with some PvP zones
- Full PvP
In each case, if you're are the Leader of this project, you'll lose customers because you can't make everyone happy.
The one who discover the true balance will win the jackpot
Originally posted by Papa_Sody Ok, this has reached the point where it is pointless to discuss it any further. NOW he is trying to say that any form of competition in a game is PvP, even if it is just comparing stats/gear, kill ratio, advancement or actual PvP combat. He is saying any time 2 people get together and do anything competitive, that is PvP. And yet, ALL of his premises are written around the idea of PvP COMBAT. The gamble of interacting in a competative way against another player where one risks losing something. He has rewritten his premises a couple times, and included some guidelines and such, but he has not yet changed his original statement. Going by this, he AGAIN needs to rewrite his statement. To be continually fun for the kind of people who like MMORPGs, a MMORPG must have a way for people to interact or compete with each other in various forms. Which is what every MMORPG has. If it's a PvP COMBAT based game, people will compare kills, fight each other, etc. If it's PvE combat based, people will compare advancement, equipment, stats, fights won, MOBs killed, whatever. He is once again comparing apples to oranges. His premises are trying to support a PvP combat based game and his arguments support the idea that any interaction is PvP. He is counterdicting himself. And I refuse to participate in this any longer.
Translation: "Oh I guess your right" Something else I learned from studying psychology: When someone goes from arguing to "you" to arguing about you in the third person it means they realized their idea was wrong and are looking for emotional support from the others...
In order to compare stats, kill ratio all that other stuff you have to have been in conflict with something in order to get them...
Once again my premises have been rewritten to make them more clear to you and others, the reasoning behind the argument has not been changed. I assume because of many's inabillity to even adress the ideas in the premises that you are having trouble reading or understanding what I am saying. Where they are now I don't think they could get any more simple, but if I think of a way to simplify it to make it easier to understand what it is saying I'll do it again.
As to my premises, they are not BASED on PVP combat.... In fact the argument does not even pertain to exclusivesly combat at all. What kind of PVP depends on the nature of the game. However the argument systematically eliminates PVE as a source of continual fun... That is its whole point of its existance...
A simple way to put an idea behind the argument is this: How long do you think, if you continually fight AI controlled content designed to let you win, until your brain recognizes that this is not really an accomplishment and it is no longer fun to you?
Originally posted by TaskyZZ No, don't stop. Keep posting simple arguments that he posts paragraphs to combat. It is fun fictional-nonsense-reading. Reading how dumb his argument is, is the fun of the entire thread. Seeing ideas just whoosh over his head, and watching him just disregard valid arguments is hilarious. This guy is a riot. If he could find night clubs full of MMORPG gamers, he could take this act on the road.
Actually most of my posts are shorter than what they are in response too... not that that matters. How much would you have to write to someone that doesn't like 1+1=2... People in this case for the most part just unable to see what is right in front of them due to false ideas they have for mental self defense... But the more you make clear and deconstruct his false ideas the more chance he will realize its true. Now the person admitting they were wrong is a horse of a different color..
More propaganda... I plainly point out why the arguments mentioned are anything but valid, you can't think of any actually valid arguments, so you resort to trying to deny and twist reality by stating the opposite of the truth. Heres a hint: When people really believe the things you say about someone, they don't state it. Stating such things makes it blatantly clear that you have been backed into a corner and can think of nothing else intelligent to say....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I am for all out pvp but if ur gonna have a game with zones for pvp and non pvp i guess i could live with it. I think if a game has servers with pvp and ones without pvp you must make up ur mind which server ur gonna play and u cant go back and forth. Once UO made trammel ofcourse i was pissed because as i stated i like all out pvp...but i always thought if a game is gonna make a zone like this atleast put a stiff tole on the zone to make it less easy for players to run in and out of these zones.
I am for all out pvp but if ur gonna have a game with zones for pvp and non pvp i guess i could live with it. I think if a game has servers with pvp and ones without pvp you must make up ur mind which server ur gonna play and u cant go back and forth. Once UO made trammel ofcourse i was pissed because as i stated i like all out pvp...but i always thought if a game is gonna make a zone like this atleast put a stiff tole on the zone to make it less easy for players to run in and out of these zones.
This I agree with. Being able to just go from one to the other at will is silly.
IMHO the best way to do PvP and accomodate as broad an audience as possible is have areas with highly contested resources or benefits for going PvP, and the safe zones with few or no real "benefits". An example may be rich veins of ore, or perhaps some resource not found anywhere else, PvP. In this way the risk of going PvP is rewarded and the non-PvP players still have a safe zone, while having access to the PvP merchants who might sell off goods to non-PvP areas.
Stating such things makes it blatantly clear that you have been backed into a corner and can think of nothing else intelligent to say....
No, I've pointed out time and time again how your premise is wrong and you then attempt to defend it but saying my perception is wrong. I've simply grown weary of beating the dead horse. You can declare yourself the winner by default, if it strokes your ego. I have better things to do. Like go play some non-PvP based, continuously un-fun MMORPG.
Originally posted by Papa_Sody Stating such things makes it blatantly clear that you have been backed into a corner and can think of nothing else intelligent to say.... No, I've pointed out time and time again how your premise is wrong and you then attempt to defend it but saying my perception is wrong. I've simply grown weary of beating the dead horse. You can declare yourself the winner by default, if it strokes your ego. I have better things to do. Like go play some non-PvP based, continuously un-fun MMORPG.
But you never did give any real argument as to why any of my premises were wrong... You argued with premise 1 saying "I can't tell people what is fun" which wasn't even what it said. And it wasn't even nessecary to the argument, it was just meant to give an explanation for a later premise.
If you don't agree that single player type content in an mmorpg (removed from socializing with people about it) gets boring faster than it can be created, either because the player can accomplish all the goals in it, or the goals are too similar (even if the lvl numbers or class names are different) then the argument has no value because it doesn't convince you of anything.
Thats not to say its not valid because of that, or even that the premise you don't agree with is wrong. But the whole point is to start with premises that everyone agrees with. So I will concede that if these premises aren't commonly believed than the argument isn't of much value.
But I thought everyone believed that people can go through single player content faster than it is created.... I mean single player games talk about 30 hours or so of play time and it took the develepors god knows how many times that in man hours to make.
@Lypheus I agree. Thats a perfect example of how pvp can still be somewhat expected but doesn't have to be "consensual" like "hey d00d whazzup mind if gank yo a55" like tmcc pointed out
@Knowledge You are obviously very intellegent. You honor this thread with your thoughts
But if I gave up arguing everytime someone got mad at me I'd still be pretty stupid :P Therefore I wont leave any word the last unless it is worthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
But I thought everyone believed that people can go through single player content faster than it is created.... I mean single player games talk about 30 hours or so of play time and it took the develepors god knows how many times that in man hours to make.
Ok, let's go with this, since we are (finally) getting away from the repetitive topics. Again, you are stating as a fact what can not be true. Not everyone is good with game. Not everyone chew through content at an accelerated rate. This doesn't mean they can't have FUN playing a game (single or multi player), it just means what may take you or me 15-30 hours to go through may take them many weeks or even months. So, again, I say that you can not make a blanket statement that encompasses every player of every game, since such a statement in inheriently false, or at least can not be proven to be true.
Of course, there is also the ratio of development time vs time played when you add up how many people play the game. For example, one of the fun games we've had in this house is dot hack infection. I played it and beat it in about 15 hours. My oldest son, 15, took about 35 hours to get to the final fight, but never beat the final fight. My oldest daughter, 12, has enjoyed playing this game alot, has probably played it for around 200 hours and hasn't made any real progress. But she still has fun with it, mostly running around killing stuff over and over. If you add up all the copies of this game sold and multiply that by an average of, say, 20 hours to finish, I would be willing to bet that the development time is far less than the total time spent going through the content.
If you don't agree that single player type content in an mmorpg (removed from socializing with people about it) gets boring faster than it can be created, either because the player can accomplish all the goals in it, or the goals are too similar (even if the lvl numbers or class names are different) then the argument has no value because it doesn't convince you of anything.
Again, this depends on the individual player. For example, my wife and I are continuously deleting low level characters in EverQuest and restarting at level 1. Each time, we choose a different class/race combination. Sometimes we're the same class, sometimes we're complimentary classes for the purpose of duoing. Other times we pick 2 classes that don't duo well together just for the challenge/fun of it. For each time we do this, we also work through that class/race combo's newbie armor quests. Sure, each set of quests are similar and differ only slightly, mostly based upon that race's starting location. But for us, it has (so far) continued to remain fun no matter how often we've done it. So, if your premise doesn't hold true for me, then it is a false assumption and negates the value of the argument it is supposed to uphold.
Thats not to say its not valid because of that, or even that the premise you don't agree with is wrong. But the whole point is to start with premises that everyone agrees with. So I will concede that if these premises aren't commonly believed than the argument isn't of much value.
At last, light at the end of the tunnel. You must, then, concede your arguments have little value since not everyone agrees with your premises. We, myself included, can agree with some, but not all. No matter how you present it, your original statement can not be true since you will always find someone for whom some or all of your premises simply aren't true.
Originally posted by Papa_Sody Ok, let's go with this, since we are (finally) getting away from the repetitive topics. Again, you are stating as a fact what can not be true. Not everyone is good with game. Not everyone chew through content at an accelerated rate. This doesn't mean they can't have FUN playing a game (single or multi player), it just means what may take you or me 15-30 hours to go through may take them many weeks or even months. So, again, I say that you can not make a blanket statement that encompasses every player of every game, since such a statement in inheriently false, or at least can not be proven to be true. Of course, there is also the ratio of development time vs time played when you add up how many people play the game. For example, one of the fun games we've had in this house is dot hack infection. I played it and beat it in about 15 hours. My oldest son, 15, took about 35 hours to get to the final fight, but never beat the final fight. My oldest daughter, 12, has enjoyed playing this game alot, has probably played it for around 200 hours and hasn't made any real progress. But she still has fun with it, mostly running around killing stuff over and over. If you add up all the copies of this game sold and multiply that by an average of, say, 20 hours to finish, I would be willing to bet that the development time is far less than the total time spent going through the content. If you don't agree that single player type content in an mmorpg (removed from socializing with people about it) gets boring faster than it can be created, either because the player can accomplish all the goals in it, or the goals are too similar (even if the lvl numbers or class names are different) then the argument has no value because it doesn't convince you of anything. Again, this depends on the individual player. For example, my wife and I are continuously deleting low level characters in EverQuest and restarting at level 1. Each time, we choose a different class/race combination. Sometimes we're the same class, sometimes we're complimentary classes for the purpose of duoing. Other times we pick 2 classes that don't duo well together just for the challenge/fun of it. For each time we do this, we also work through that class/race combo's newbie armor quests. Sure, each set of quests are similar and differ only slightly, mostly based upon that race's starting location. But for us, it has (so far) continued to remain fun no matter how often we've done it. So, if your premise doesn't hold true for me, then it is a false assumption and negates the value of the argument it is supposed to uphold. Thats not to say its not valid because of that, or even that the premise you don't agree with is wrong. But the whole point is to start with premises that everyone agrees with. So I will concede that if these premises aren't commonly believed than the argument isn't of much value. At last, light at the end of the tunnel. You must, then, concede your arguments have little value since not everyone agrees with your premises. We, myself included, can agree with some, but not all. No matter how you present it, your original statement can not be true since you will always find someone for whom some or all of your premises simply aren't true.
Well yeah some people do play through game content slower than others, (and in my experience those people seem to get bored slower than others) But it usually still seems much faster than the content can be reproduced. Granted that you could have someone that plays only one hour a week due to work and social life constraints. But this was obvious from the get go.. the argument is for continuous fun which means a person could play as many hours as there are in a week.
Im also not looking at the time taken by everyone to consume the content... Thats irrelevant to the argument since we are looking at the possibility of gaps between fun for players in a mmorpg. All that matters is can the company supply content faster than a single player can get bored of it. 200 hrs is a really really long time to play a video game. Is there an in game timer for this game or is that kind of an estimation?
now- I want to say before I respond to the next paragraph, that people may continue to play a game well past when it is fun. Particuarly when it USED to be fun. (which is usually the case) And by fun here I mean that it supplies the person with the actual emotion or chemical in his brain.... Next I want to say that the things in video games which are fun or not fun are very basic (as in building blocks) - that is to say, being killed in a video game and losing some of your progress etc is pretty much just anger itself... and I'm sorry but I know that all people are working towards the love and respect they might get (or have a ghost imprint of) by progressing in the game and accomplishing things in the game... It is my belief that these things are common to all human beings playing a video game. IE I think its impossible for someone to be changing zones, die to a zoning bug and then scream "YES!!! AWESOME!!"
And everything you have told me goes along with this really. You liked being a good cleric, people respected that, you try difficult char combinations with your wife, doing each one succesfully is a new accomplishment...
I also know that many many people agree with this premise. And actually I worded my last statement wrong, because it doesn't matter if only a few people don't agree with the premise, as long as most people do.
HOWEVER From what you say maybe you genuinely enjoy playing everquest excessively and if so there must be a reason for this. It really just isn't possible that fun is just completely different for you or anyone else. And nothing you have said points to this being true anyways. There is something you keep bringing up that would be a strong explanation for this and makes perfect sense to me. That is your wife... If there is what would normally be a limited degree of fun at a certain point of playing, but rather than just have a ghost imprint of being loved as a child, or what some people call a feeling of self worth, there is your wife right there experiencing the things with you. Come to think of it as a child I used to sit there and try to get family members to watch me play video games... of course I failed miserably but still. That could increase the feeling somewhat. But still the things I mentioned in my deleted premise would effect you the same way just you would have fun a bit longer... or do they not?
Why do you delete the characters and start over at level 15 as opposed to playing them to lvl 200? I know that most games start out allowing you to level fast and then they get farther and farther apart (making it less and less fun according to me) could it be that its not as fun past 15?
Are there periods in which you don't play everquest for a while until they release new content? How many hours around do you play a week? (Just answer if its really little or if your more of an avg mmorpg gamer)
Obviously if any type of friend could have the same effect on a gamer, and the effect was so strong that the games are fun for 10x longer or more than the argument is finished. But I know that many degrees of friendships do not provide this effect... But if you really do enjoy playing everquest for long periods of time and
I wonder exactly how strong this effect can be or if there are effective ways to strengthen it. Now that I think about it, I know playing a character in a support position by say healing characters or just providing help and information in general does this. However this requires that the player being helped is still playing which means he is still going through the content. Ultimately that does not effect my argument.
There is the possibillity that it can only be someone of the opposite sex that you actually have a relationship with. or maybe someone you at least know in real life. Or maybe just someone you are really really good friends with. But the fact that most players do get bored with content much faster than it is created (most I have spoken too or read posts from which is a lot..) Says that it can't be too common an occurence.
Whats more important is can it be somehow controlled... obviously many developers have tried and failed with different player interaction ideas.
Wait a minute.. this is just the social aspect... I was only supposed to be considering the game aspect. I mean I can call up my girlfriend and talk to her and play a boring game and still have fun
Anotherwords you playing with your wife just multiplies all fun ... so you would have much more fun much more consistently playing a better game then a worse game...
But does the game make socializing more fun than it would be otherwise I wonder. If so then I guess you could claim that a game could be made to maximize this and then claim that the game is perpetually fun. But socializing is just another type of pvp And when you joke its taking a gamble you might say something stupid but you might say something funny.
Ahh Im in a really wierd mood and this is just like stream of consiousness I need to not do this right now and come back later lol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I have no problems with your ideas, all currently MMORPGs suffer from the 10X rule and as such PvP is a viable and probably the easist option. I do not agree that PvP is the only way you can introduce slowdown to content consumption, I think a well design PvE environment where the players can introduce new content could also work.
With good design and tools the content could be designed to some extent by the players, this does 2 things, introduces a fun slow down to content consumption and generates more content at a faster rate. If you take a look at most current PvP worlds this is what happens, players build towns they then need to defend. Lets take that a step further in a PvE world, players build towns, dungeons and structures that they can then develop quests around. All that is needed is enough of a slow down that the developers can keep up. If players are doing half the work on content creation the devs only need to do enough to build on what the players are doing.
While you have excluded social interation from your list I think you need to look at the fact that PvP is a social interation. PvP without social interation can't exist (even if your just killing someone its still a social interation, unless players can't comunicate and have no names) so I think you need to look at that as one of the major ways to keep a game fun long term. Guilds are one of the current major ways to keep players playing, they are a very important part of things. I have no doubt at all that a PvP game without guilds (or social interstion) wouldn't last more than a few months. Just look at the FPS deathermatch style games, they have guilds and clans.
Without social interation the points made in premise 1 and 2 fail within the PvP world because there is no one to get respect and love from.
Please note: last comment was based on the original premise, I just noticed that have changed.
200 hrs is a really really long time to play a video game. Is there an in game timer for this game or is that kind of an estimation?
Mostly an estimation, but some games do have a timer. My oldest EQ character has well over 300 days played on it. Thats 24x300+ hours.
Why do you delete the characters and start over at level 15 as opposed to playing them to lvl 200? I know that most games start out allowing you to level fast and then they get farther and farther apart (making it less and less fun according to me) could it be that its not as fun past 15?
Well, for EQ, there are only 65 levels. And SOE has reduced the mid level (25-45) content alot while making those area that used to be 25-45 into higher level zones in order to create more high level stuff, since the vast majority of the players are high level or trying to get to high level as fast as possible.
So, for us, grinding through levels 20 to 50 is not something we like to do. We have our high level characters which we play, and we make and remake lower level characters to enjoy the lower level game.
Wait a minute.. this is just the social aspect... I was only supposed to be considering the game aspect. I mean I can call up my girlfriend and talk to her and play a boring game and still have fun
A valid point, maybe. I really couldn't say, I've been married for a long time and there is a huge difference between talking to a girl on the phone and having one sitting 3 feet from you. It is probably true that one of the reasons we have so much fun together and we play so well together is we don't have the limitation of the keyboard to slow our communication. However, the game itself does have some bearing on the fun we have together. Some games suck so badly that even playing together can't make the game fun for us.
Shadowbane was one such game. And not because it was/is PvP based, but because the game mechanics sucked, big time. The user interface was clusy and annoying and the gameplay style was simply not appealing to us.
However, not all of our time in EQ is spent together. I play more in the day than she does. She goes to college during the day, I go at night, so one of us is usually home with the kids. And while the fun I have playing with my online friends may be less than when I play with my wife, I still have fun. Not ALL the time, but enough of the time to have kept me playing for well over 4 years.
Are there periods in which you don't play everquest for a while until they release new content? How many hours around do you play a week? (Just answer if its really little or if your more of an avg mmorpg gamer)
Well, while I know of alot of people who stop playing over and over, but come back every time a new expansion is released, our time has been continuous. We aren't playing right now due to finacial limitations, but I hope to get another good paying job this month to fix that little snafu.
But does the game make socializing more fun than it would be otherwise I wonder. If so then I guess you could claim that a game could be made to maximize this and then claim that the game is perpetually fun. But socializing is just another type of pvp
Funny you should bring that up. My wife, like most other women, has her moods. When she's in a mood, she wont talk to anyone. She becomes very anti-social and just wants to kill shit. However, other times, to her, EQ is just a graphical chat room where she spends alot of time doing nothing but chatting with various people. And she has played games that were mostly socializing games. Underlight it was called, I think. In SW:G she played a dancer. While I was off hunting the wildlands of Tatooine, she was dancing her little butt off in a bar in Mos Eisley.
And when you joke its taking a gamble you might say something stupid but you might say something funny.
Heh, you should spend some time in the Plane of Knowledge in EQ. Alot of people /shout or /ooc (zone wide talking) thngs that are so stupid it's funny
Now, let me try to use logic to show your view, bear with me if it seems convoluted...
Let's start with your original statement: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based
PvP, by your definition, is any time players interact with other players. Using substitution, we then get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
A MMORPG is defined as a game where many plyers can play at any given time, can role play a character and interact with each other. Again, using substitution, we get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG.
Logically speaking, this works out nicely, doesn't it? The problem does not lie in your logic, and never has. The problem lies in your definitions. There is one point you bring up now that I must disagree with. Socializing is not Player versus Player. Exchanging information, strategy or equipment with other players is not Player versus Player (well, you could argue that if one player is attempting to mislead or cheat the other player, then that is PvP.) Two warriors comparing their total hit points is not Player versus Player. Friendly rivalry, maybe. In my view, these are examples of Player to Player interaction.
Player versus Player interaction, in my view, must be defined as: Any interaction between 2 or more players where 1 or more player is risking the loss of something valuable. Time, money/equipment earned, status. In other words, since there is a risk of loss for 1 or more players involved, any PvP encounter is inherently negative.
Again, lets take your original statement that we modified, above: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
Now lets add in the definition of PvP as I see it: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other in a negative way.
Now, this makes the statement work out as such: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG with negative player to player interaction.
And that is something I simply can not agree with.
Comments
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Im not mixing up anything.... I am saying opinion because people use opinion to talk about things to which there is a definite answer to... regardless of what the dictionary says. When they do that they give a new definition to opinion to which I am refering. In case we forgot thats WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT... you were trying to defends someone "opinion" of a factual situation... Then you try and tell ME that opinions can't regard factual situations... LOL
Your a idiot plain and simple. When you prove a opinion wrong or right it then becomes FACT. Do you not understand that? If there is a clear cut answer for a opinion it no longer exists as a opinion, it becomes FACT. I never stated you couldnt use facts to support opinions. I did state tho that opinions can not be wrong. When they are proven to be right or wrong they then become facts. Understand yet? You want a example?
EX.Ford is better than Chevy since Ford has been around longer than Chevy = (Opinion). There you go, useing factual based information to try and prove a opinion, but it still doesn't make my opinion right or wrong.
Originally posted by Shimi
imho it cant make you happy to hunt just the same respawns and watch you statistics growing,if you like this,then you shouldnt play online and you can play diablo at you home...the charmy thing about mmorpg is you can cooparate and communicate and fight with other PEOPLE
Yes it can make you happy if that is what you like. Grouping with friends to tackle some PvE mobs, to some is more exciting than fighting PC controlled characters. People like different things. What one person finds fun another will not, and that is their opinion on why they dont like certain types of games.
Now who the hell are you to tell people how to spend their money? Its that attitude why people in the PvE/PvP communities cant get along. NO where in MMORPG does it say that someone has to fight PC controlled characters (unless the game is designed strictly for PvP). It does say Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game tho. Who is to say how people play their role within the game?
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
The Blooded
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
Funny thing though, some people go a whole life without actually killing a single person, quite a few of thoose are indeed happy with their life and they have probably lived it for far longer then any mmorpg has existed.
See, in real life to people collect stuff, they make friends, they buy uber toys and gears, not once have I thought "Wooa, this BMW is way cool, wonder if I should drive into a crowd with it so they can see how kewl it is".
The argument that you need to kill people, game or no game, to show your worth tells a horrible tale about you as a person.
The statement, "but this is a GAME" hold no bearing what so ever as every aspect of human life is replicated and strived for in all games, may be that the storyline behind it is difference or the world in wich it takes place. Yet it displays the full array of human emotion and actions, most often our online game become a substitute for our real one, we live it like we would like our real one to be.
Again, many many people around the world live happy lifes for years maybe even without hurting someone, hehe, imagine that...
And to me, all your premises could fit this statement as well:
"Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG can NOT be PVP based. - simplified"
And to call it simplified is a bit of stretch really, was kinda hard to make heads or tails on what you meant.
Be well
Umbrood
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good answer... good post...
The first statement I quoted seems to be one of the main difficulties people are having in disputing this argument. That is not the BASIS for my argument. That is the conclusion. The premises are the basis for the argument. If you agree with all the premises, and the argument is valid (THAT IS the premises nessecitate the conclusion) then the conclusion is true undeniably.
I would be more than happy to describe what I am using as definition of those things. (Not in the sense of what the dictionary says about them, which is just a tool used to limit language from changing to much) I certainly do not remember you asking for this before.
Continually as I use it in the argument does not exactly refer to a length of time. It more refers to there not being periods of time in between fun when the game gets boring. Any MMORPG has a possibility of being fun in the future since the devs might release more content (even if the new stuff lasts 2 seconds flat)
Fun as I use it (which one of previous unessecary premises stated) is any one of the distinct feelings a person can have which feels good. Love/Respect, Taste, Realization, fight or flight, then like non external stimuli related... recreation drugs or other effects of say sex which can go all over your body... These are my ways of referring to them because I don't remember which chemicals (saratonin, dopamine, noradrenaline whatever) cause what feelings or if even some of these are the same, and my understanding of it came from studying people first and reading psychology second. But a WIDE range of events which are different externally not only cause a reception/slowed decay of the same chemicals, but are essentially the same to your brain. For example, you listen to music(brain recognizes patterns in the music), figure something out, chill out in nature (maybe others related here) thats realization. Your up to bat with bases loaded thats fight or flight i believe, and then if you come through love/respect. You have sex with someone thats love/respect, realization, fight or flight (at first), possibly smell/taste and non stimuli related internal chems...
Anyways to get back on the subject my old premise 1 that wasn't nessecary to the argument was supposed to be dealing with fun itself. (love/respect) The other feelings that might be considered fun can't be controlled or sustained at least by the developer of an mmorpg...
My revision was simply to make the argument simpler... The first few arguments were to try and explain one of the later premises, but that premise is apparently more easily accepted than its explanation so the using its explanation as a premise is not much use.. There is no dancing around the topic going on, the premises nessecitate the conclusion and are all pretty much common knowledge...
And Your list was a list of things that have nothing to do with pvp. No I did not know the definition of content was "to be satisfied" oO Here I was thinking it had to do with stuff being held....
Anyways let me add this from another thread since its another central problem you are having trouble understanding.
What exactly do you think pvp is? When you talk about pve, in a sense you are STILL talking about pvp. A person designed the program code behind the mobs you fight.. What about tabletop rpgs? A person has to directly control the mobs here... In fact how do you KNOW for absolutely sure, that the mobs in those games are not, or sometimes are not controlled by people? You don't. The only real difference between PVE and PVP is that PVE is designed to let you win....
From this idea alone, it can be said that ANY game cannot exist without some form of either pvp or pure luck gambling (the only 2 things which can allow an uncertaine outcome, and the skill aspect of skill dependent gambling is pvp against the designer of the game)... and pure luck gambling is not fun unless you equate the thing you can get through it to love/respect
Wrong. People that like pain have been trained to feel love and respect directly after pain, because of experiencing it. They don't experience the actual pain as you would feeling loved. No people cannot change the effects of the chemicals in their brain that cause different feelings and make them backwards... If you don't believe me go ask one of them. Next...
The next paragraph is just meaningless propaganda... next
No I am not trying to define my opinion as fact. I am trying to explain that the thing you are calling my opinion is regarding a factual situation and is an observation of that factual situation. And my observation of that factual situation is right.
If fun is determined by a person than how can psychologists perscribe drugs to *make* people have more of it? According to you they can't. Yet they do... and they work...
Ill grant you that a persons nueral network (personality) can be twisted around in all kinds of ways to interpret stimulii differently... to a limited degree. this doesn't have a huge bearing on my argument or even what I had as premise 1 before. If a person is playing a video game then they are working towards a feeling of self and/or possible external respect by accomplishing the goals in it. If a person likes to play soccer they are working towards the same, but by playing soccer...
My argument once again says nothing about success. It says fun. Fun and success of the game will come together more the longer the mmorpg market exists. People can only choose between what exists so far.
Once again, you don't know what pvp is. Read what I posted in the other thread to you or at the end of my response to ramonski in the same post. In case your too lazy, the main point is the only difference between pvp and pve to you is that PVE is designed to let you win...
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just pointing out to you that the things you say to try and contradict my argument make no sense. And by the way, "to be continually fun a mmorpg must be pvp based" is the conclusion of the argument not a premise.
Well I think you are wrong here. If you think about it, you are basically claiming that the design of the game has no effect on how long it is fun, as long as the company interacts with the customers or provides more content. This excludes the possibility of single player games being fun, much less having any replayability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Sorry ramonski, people do not use words with the definitions straight out of the dictionary. The dictionary is simply a tool to limit evolution of language between peoples that are supposed to be in the same culture, as the definition of a word changes every time someone uses it. For example in our argument, when you say pvp you are referring to something totally different than what I am referring to, because you think it nessecitates traits which it does not. Which is what I have been trying to tell you all along.
In the case of fun you are thinking of what someone answers when you ask them if they are having fun. I am speaking of the actual distinct feelings that are likely, but not ABSOLUTELY for certain going to make them answer a certain way (as they can say whatever they want to).
Ill bet you really thought you had something there. Let me answer your questions anyways just for "fun".
1) Depends on the definition being thought of for all the words being used
2) same
3) same
Now what I could do if I had a dictionary and a WHOLE lot of spare time is to construct my argument with the exact same reasoning using words where the definition written in the dictionary corresponds to the words I used. Fun would be replaced by "feeling good or pleasant"
If a person wanted to claim then that feeling good was not fun and feeling like shit was fun then they could. But that really wouldn't change anything would it?
And you can do this while fighting other PEOPLE
As opposed to just static AI mobs created by other PEOPLE designed to let you win. respawn camping has nothing to do with pvp... next
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Aww poor baby... did we get our wittle feewings hut? I sozzy...
Actually your wrong. Just because we dont yet know what the truth about something is doesn't mean that an opinion about it can't be right or wrong. IT IS either right or wrong we just don't know which yet. The example you gave was of something to which there isn't a definite answer, because the definition of better is not clear. (definition as in what causes it not what mr. dictionary says) The definition of fun isn't totally 100% clear in this sense either really, but it is used almost exclusively to refer to things that "feel good" to someone. And what feels good to someone can be explained and IS a factual situation. However people can still claim they are not having fun when they feel good, and claim they are having fun when they feel bad.
Confused about who your talking to at the end but I think its me since your jumping up and down. The only way people even know the difference between PVE and PVP is that in PVE they consistently win. Thats the only difference to the player... Im not trying to tell anyone what to do. Im trying to design a game that will make players "feel good" to play it.
When you defeat someone at pvp they don't fall over dead at their keyboard in a pool of blood. When you beat someone in basketball they don't fall over dead. When you kill an AI mob its creator doesn't fall over dead. When you make a joke everyone who can't think of anything funny to say doesn't fall over dead. When you buy a BMW and show it off at a nightclub everyone who can't afford one doesnt fall over dead. Every time you compete with someone the loser doesn't die. I think my point is clear.
Your argument that games are not just games, if organized like mine (so as not to hide what I am about to point out) claims its conclusion as a premise. You say I can't claim a game is a game because games are not just games. And both your conclusion and itself as a premise are wrong.
Games are designed to let people have fun not around reality. There is no permanent death in mmorpg. There is no sex in games so that you feel it in reality. And no, video games can not cause the full array of human emotion. You talk pretty though.
If you don't even understand the premises, I fail to see how you could be attempting to dispute them...
Next...
PS mods sorry for powerposting, I keep hitting the wrong button and not realizing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Ok, this has reached the point where it is pointless to discuss it any further. NOW he is trying to say that any form of competition in a game is PvP, even if it is just comparing stats/gear, kill ratio, advancement or actual PvP combat.
He is saying any time 2 people get together and do anything competitive, that is PvP.
And yet, ALL of his premises are written around the idea of PvP COMBAT. The gamble of interacting in a competative way against another player where one risks losing something. He has rewritten his premises a couple times, and included some guidelines and such, but he has not yet changed his original statement. Going by this, he AGAIN needs to rewrite his statement.
To be continually fun for the kind of people who like MMORPGs, a MMORPG must have a way for people to interact or compete with each other in various forms.
Which is what every MMORPG has. If it's a PvP COMBAT based game, people will compare kills, fight each other, etc. If it's PvE combat based, people will compare advancement, equipment, stats, fights won, MOBs killed, whatever.
He is once again comparing apples to oranges. His premises are trying to support a PvP combat based game and his arguments support the idea that any interaction is PvP. He is counterdicting himself. And I refuse to participate in this any longer.
No, don't stop. Keep posting simple arguments that he posts paragraphs to combat. It is fun fictional-nonsense-reading.
Reading how dumb his argument is, is the fun of the entire thread. Seeing ideas just whoosh over his head, and watching him just disregard valid arguments is hilarious.
This guy is a riot. If he could find night clubs full of MMORPG gamers, he could take this act on the road.
Aww poor baby... did we get our wittle feewings hut? I sozzy
No you didnt hurt my feeling. Sorry to make you feel bad tho since I know you been trying. No sense in trying to argue with someone that has no clue what the hell he is argueing about. You dont have the brains god gave a retarded piss ant.
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
The Blooded
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
I understand this topic has become somewhat emotional for some of the posters , in which respect it should no longer persist. For sake of pure curiousity I have read the entire post and I do not wish to offend anyone.
BUT:
Kriminal is right in the respect that EVERYTHING can be broken down logically. Everything. Even religion and politics, which are topics that can be infinitely argued, can be broken down into logic. There is no possible way to argue against logic without eventually failing due to scientifically proven fact and the infinate existance of corrections that logic provides.
On The Flipside:
It is easy to create a statement and dub it as logic. This is a tool consitantly used in many debates succesfully as any logical human being naturally wouldn't oppose logic itself. For example, "Magic Johnson is actually the all around best player in the NBA, for he still holds the highest all around stats for any one basketball player." This statement is completely false. For someone who studies basketball or is highly familiar with the related statistics, the idea of the previous statement could be easily spotted as incorrect. For one that is unfamiliar with basketball but has a liking for another player in which they felt/thought was the best basketball player will lose the argument in most cases due to lack of knowledge. Some may not even argue the idea itself at all because the statement came across as fact, not opinion. Kriminal has obviously studied humanology, physiology, psycology, or all of the above. In this case he either backs his ideas with actual fact or disguises them with statements that come across as factual.
Recommendation:
To succesfully argue your opinions/facts why not approach Kriminal's ideas in the form in which he originally suggested. Oppose the ideas with proven fact. If no one can do this, his ideas are ultimately correct.
Why Logic?:
Because logic is similar to matter, while it is not the makeup of all things it can be used to explain them. I can pick a random situation in my own life, one after the other, or even respond to another person's random sitation and prove this idea over and over again to be completely factual.
For Example (true story):
I knew a boy named Mike who hated black people. When initially questioned about is dislike he answered with the idea that "Black people are ignorant. All they care about is necklaces and clothes and rap music and hurting other people." To Mike, this statement was fact. It was his opinion, but through his own observations and evaluations it was proven to himself therefor he accepted it as fact. Logically, you cannot solve this idea by accepted what has been said. It is necessary to pry for more information. Had Mike ever met a black person? "Yeah. Three black people. I was walking in the mall and three of them pushed me for no reason and called me names. The only other black people I've seen is the stupid one's in the rap videos talking about killing other people's mothers and money and stuff like that." Here is the logic. The fact behind the opinioin. Mike does not dislike black people because all black people are ignorant. Mike dislikes black people because he has been mistreated by black people. The only black people he had ever known had treated him in an ignorant manner and those he sees express themselves in an ignorant way. Two years later Mike's favorite music is rap music. Mike likes black people. Why? Because I am black. I showed Mike that not all black people are ignorant and mean and selfish. Logically, his feelings changed.
In Conclusion:
Most feelings can ultimately be explained by logic after asking the simple question, "Why?" Why demands reason. Reason is logical. Knowledge is power.
True Knowledge is Knowing that you Know Knothing!
An MMORPG must be PvP for many because the world surrounding that MMORPG is predictable, while PvP is often not. It adds a dynamic element to the game that would otherwise not be there.
When AI makes NPC indistinguishable from PC, then PvP would be unnecessary.
But if AI could make an NPC indistinguishable from PC, then an MMORPG would not be necessary either.
If you examine the above axioms, you'll come to a proof by contradiction.
Well , after playing Everquest for several years in a non-PvP server, I must admit that a tad of PvP in the Arenas were giving me that "bit" of fun that I needed in this predictable all friendly ( cough ) server.
We must agree with any opinions emitted. Taste and colors are not a matter of discussion, we are all different and that's why this world is not boring
When creating an MMORPG you have several choices :
- No PvP at all
- PvP on some servers
- Non-PvP servers with some PvP zones
- Full PvP
In each case, if you're are the Leader of this project, you'll lose customers because you can't make everyone happy.
The one who discover the true balance will win the jackpot
Mackiavel
Mackiavel
Translation: "Oh I guess your right" Something else I learned from studying psychology: When someone goes from arguing to "you" to arguing about you in the third person it means they realized their idea was wrong and are looking for emotional support from the others...
In order to compare stats, kill ratio all that other stuff you have to have been in conflict with something in order to get them...
Once again my premises have been rewritten to make them more clear to you and others, the reasoning behind the argument has not been changed. I assume because of many's inabillity to even adress the ideas in the premises that you are having trouble reading or understanding what I am saying. Where they are now I don't think they could get any more simple, but if I think of a way to simplify it to make it easier to understand what it is saying I'll do it again.
As to my premises, they are not BASED on PVP combat.... In fact the argument does not even pertain to exclusivesly combat at all. What kind of PVP depends on the nature of the game. However the argument systematically eliminates PVE as a source of continual fun... That is its whole point of its existance...
A simple way to put an idea behind the argument is this: How long do you think, if you continually fight AI controlled content designed to let you win, until your brain recognizes that this is not really an accomplishment and it is no longer fun to you?
Actually most of my posts are shorter than what they are in response too... not that that matters. How much would you have to write to someone that doesn't like 1+1=2... People in this case for the most part just unable to see what is right in front of them due to false ideas they have for mental self defense... But the more you make clear and deconstruct his false ideas the more chance he will realize its true. Now the person admitting they were wrong is a horse of a different color..
More propaganda... I plainly point out why the arguments mentioned are anything but valid, you can't think of any actually valid arguments, so you resort to trying to deny and twist reality by stating the opposite of the truth. Heres a hint: When people really believe the things you say about someone, they don't state it. Stating such things makes it blatantly clear that you have been backed into a corner and can think of nothing else intelligent to say....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
This I agree with. Being able to just go from one to the other at will is silly.
IMHO the best way to do PvP and accomodate as broad an audience as possible is have areas with highly contested resources or benefits for going PvP, and the safe zones with few or no real "benefits". An example may be rich veins of ore, or perhaps some resource not found anywhere else, PvP. In this way the risk of going PvP is rewarded and the non-PvP players still have a safe zone, while having access to the PvP merchants who might sell off goods to non-PvP areas.
Stating such things makes it blatantly clear that you have been backed into a corner and can think of nothing else intelligent to say....
No, I've pointed out time and time again how your premise is wrong and you then attempt to defend it but saying my perception is wrong. I've simply grown weary of beating the dead horse. You can declare yourself the winner by default, if it strokes your ego. I have better things to do. Like go play some non-PvP based, continuously un-fun MMORPG.
But you never did give any real argument as to why any of my premises were wrong... You argued with premise 1 saying "I can't tell people what is fun" which wasn't even what it said. And it wasn't even nessecary to the argument, it was just meant to give an explanation for a later premise.
If you don't agree that single player type content in an mmorpg (removed from socializing with people about it) gets boring faster than it can be created, either because the player can accomplish all the goals in it, or the goals are too similar (even if the lvl numbers or class names are different) then the argument has no value because it doesn't convince you of anything.
Thats not to say its not valid because of that, or even that the premise you don't agree with is wrong. But the whole point is to start with premises that everyone agrees with. So I will concede that if these premises aren't commonly believed than the argument isn't of much value.
But I thought everyone believed that people can go through single player content faster than it is created.... I mean single player games talk about 30 hours or so of play time and it took the develepors god knows how many times that in man hours to make.
@Lypheus I agree. Thats a perfect example of how pvp can still be somewhat expected but doesn't have to be "consensual" like "hey d00d whazzup mind if gank yo a55" like tmcc pointed out
@Knowledge You are obviously very intellegent. You honor this thread with your thoughts
But if I gave up arguing everytime someone got mad at me I'd still be pretty stupid :P Therefore I wont leave any word the last unless it is worthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
But I thought everyone believed that people can go through single player content faster than it is created.... I mean single player games talk about 30 hours or so of play time and it took the develepors god knows how many times that in man hours to make.
Ok, let's go with this, since we are (finally) getting away from the repetitive topics. Again, you are stating as a fact what can not be true. Not everyone is good with game. Not everyone chew through content at an accelerated rate. This doesn't mean they can't have FUN playing a game (single or multi player), it just means what may take you or me 15-30 hours to go through may take them many weeks or even months. So, again, I say that you can not make a blanket statement that encompasses every player of every game, since such a statement in inheriently false, or at least can not be proven to be true.
Of course, there is also the ratio of development time vs time played when you add up how many people play the game. For example, one of the fun games we've had in this house is dot hack infection. I played it and beat it in about 15 hours. My oldest son, 15, took about 35 hours to get to the final fight, but never beat the final fight. My oldest daughter, 12, has enjoyed playing this game alot, has probably played it for around 200 hours and hasn't made any real progress. But she still has fun with it, mostly running around killing stuff over and over. If you add up all the copies of this game sold and multiply that by an average of, say, 20 hours to finish, I would be willing to bet that the development time is far less than the total time spent going through the content.
If you don't agree that single player type content in an mmorpg (removed from socializing with people about it) gets boring faster than it can be created, either because the player can accomplish all the goals in it, or the goals are too similar (even if the lvl numbers or class names are different) then the argument has no value because it doesn't convince you of anything.
Again, this depends on the individual player. For example, my wife and I are continuously deleting low level characters in EverQuest and restarting at level 1. Each time, we choose a different class/race combination. Sometimes we're the same class, sometimes we're complimentary classes for the purpose of duoing. Other times we pick 2 classes that don't duo well together just for the challenge/fun of it. For each time we do this, we also work through that class/race combo's newbie armor quests. Sure, each set of quests are similar and differ only slightly, mostly based upon that race's starting location. But for us, it has (so far) continued to remain fun no matter how often we've done it. So, if your premise doesn't hold true for me, then it is a false assumption and negates the value of the argument it is supposed to uphold.
Thats not to say its not valid because of that, or even that the premise you don't agree with is wrong. But the whole point is to start with premises that everyone agrees with. So I will concede that if these premises aren't commonly believed than the argument isn't of much value.
At last, light at the end of the tunnel. You must, then, concede your arguments have little value since not everyone agrees with your premises. We, myself included, can agree with some, but not all. No matter how you present it, your original statement can not be true since you will always find someone for whom some or all of your premises simply aren't true.
Well yeah some people do play through game content slower than others, (and in my experience those people seem to get bored slower than others) But it usually still seems much faster than the content can be reproduced. Granted that you could have someone that plays only one hour a week due to work and social life constraints. But this was obvious from the get go.. the argument is for continuous fun which means a person could play as many hours as there are in a week.
Im also not looking at the time taken by everyone to consume the content... Thats irrelevant to the argument since we are looking at the possibility of gaps between fun for players in a mmorpg. All that matters is can the company supply content faster than a single player can get bored of it. 200 hrs is a really really long time to play a video game. Is there an in game timer for this game or is that kind of an estimation?
now- I want to say before I respond to the next paragraph, that people may continue to play a game well past when it is fun. Particuarly when it USED to be fun. (which is usually the case) And by fun here I mean that it supplies the person with the actual emotion or chemical in his brain.... Next I want to say that the things in video games which are fun or not fun are very basic (as in building blocks) - that is to say, being killed in a video game and losing some of your progress etc is pretty much just anger itself... and I'm sorry but I know that all people are working towards the love and respect they might get (or have a ghost imprint of) by progressing in the game and accomplishing things in the game... It is my belief that these things are common to all human beings playing a video game. IE I think its impossible for someone to be changing zones, die to a zoning bug and then scream "YES!!! AWESOME!!"
And everything you have told me goes along with this really. You liked being a good cleric, people respected that, you try difficult char combinations with your wife, doing each one succesfully is a new accomplishment...
I also know that many many people agree with this premise. And actually I worded my last statement wrong, because it doesn't matter if only a few people don't agree with the premise, as long as most people do.
HOWEVER From what you say maybe you genuinely enjoy playing everquest excessively and if so there must be a reason for this. It really just isn't possible that fun is just completely different for you or anyone else. And nothing you have said points to this being true anyways. There is something you keep bringing up that would be a strong explanation for this and makes perfect sense to me. That is your wife... If there is what would normally be a limited degree of fun at a certain point of playing, but rather than just have a ghost imprint of being loved as a child, or what some people call a feeling of self worth, there is your wife right there experiencing the things with you. Come to think of it as a child I used to sit there and try to get family members to watch me play video games... of course I failed miserably
but still. That could increase the feeling somewhat. But still the things I mentioned in my deleted premise would effect you the same way just you would have fun a bit longer... or do they not?
Why do you delete the characters and start over at level 15 as opposed to playing them to lvl 200? I know that most games start out allowing you to level fast and then they get farther and farther apart (making it less and less fun according to me) could it be that its not as fun past 15?
Are there periods in which you don't play everquest for a while until they release new content? How many hours around do you play a week? (Just answer if its really little or if your more of an avg mmorpg gamer)
Obviously if any type of friend could have the same effect on a gamer, and the effect was so strong that the games are fun for 10x longer or more than the argument is finished. But I know that many degrees of friendships do not provide this effect... But if you really do enjoy playing everquest for long periods of time and
I wonder exactly how strong this effect can be or if there are effective ways to strengthen it. Now that I think about it, I know playing a character in a support position by say healing characters or just providing help and information in general does this. However this requires that the player being helped is still playing which means he is still going through the content. Ultimately that does not effect my argument.
There is the possibillity that it can only be someone of the opposite sex that you actually have a relationship with. or maybe someone you at least know in real life. Or maybe just someone you are really really good friends with. But the fact that most players do get bored with content much faster than it is created (most I have spoken too or read posts from which is a lot..) Says that it can't be too common an occurence.
Whats more important is can it be somehow controlled... obviously many developers have tried and failed with different player interaction ideas.
Wait a minute.. this is just the social aspect... I was only supposed to be considering the game aspect. I mean I can call up my girlfriend and talk to her and play a boring game and still have fun
Anotherwords you playing with your wife just multiplies all fun ... so you would have much more fun much more consistently playing a better game then a worse game...
But does the game make socializing more fun than it would be otherwise I wonder. If so then I guess you could claim that a game could be made to maximize this and then claim that the game is perpetually fun. But socializing is just another type of pvp
And when you joke its taking a gamble you might say something stupid but you might say something funny.
Ahh Im in a really wierd mood and this is just like stream of consiousness I need to not do this right now and come back later lol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I have no problems with your ideas, all currently MMORPGs suffer from the 10X rule and as such PvP is a viable and probably the easist option. I do not agree that PvP is the only way you can introduce slowdown to content consumption, I think a well design PvE environment where the players can introduce new content could also work.
With good design and tools the content could be designed to some extent by the players, this does 2 things, introduces a fun slow down to content consumption and generates more content at a faster rate. If you take a look at most current PvP worlds this is what happens, players build towns they then need to defend. Lets take that a step further in a PvE world, players build towns, dungeons and structures that they can then develop quests around. All that is needed is enough of a slow down that the developers can keep up. If players are doing half the work on content creation the devs only need to do enough to build on what the players are doing.
While you have excluded social interation from your list I think you need to look at the fact that PvP is a social interation. PvP without social interation can't exist (even if your just killing someone its still a social interation, unless players can't comunicate and have no names) so I think you need to look at that as one of the major ways to keep a game fun long term. Guilds are one of the current major ways to keep players playing, they are a very important part of things. I have no doubt at all that a PvP game without guilds (or social interstion) wouldn't last more than a few months. Just look at the FPS deathermatch style games, they have guilds and clans.
Without social interation the points made in premise 1 and 2 fail within the PvP world because there is no one to get respect and love from.
Please note: last comment was based on the original premise, I just noticed that have changed.
200 hrs is a really really long time to play a video game. Is there an in game timer for this game or is that kind of an estimation?
Mostly an estimation, but some games do have a timer. My oldest EQ character has well over 300 days played on it. Thats 24x300+ hours.
Why do you delete the characters and start over at level 15 as opposed to playing them to lvl 200? I know that most games start out allowing you to level fast and then they get farther and farther apart (making it less and less fun according to me) could it be that its not as fun past 15?
Well, for EQ, there are only 65 levels. And SOE has reduced the mid level (25-45) content alot while making those area that used to be 25-45 into higher level zones in order to create more high level stuff, since the vast majority of the players are high level or trying to get to high level as fast as possible.
So, for us, grinding through levels 20 to 50 is not something we like to do. We have our high level characters which we play, and we make and remake lower level characters to enjoy the lower level game.
Wait a minute.. this is just the social aspect... I was only supposed to be considering the game aspect. I mean I can call up my girlfriend and talk to her and play a boring game and still have fun
A valid point, maybe. I really couldn't say, I've been married for a long time and there is a huge difference between talking to a girl on the phone and having one sitting 3 feet from you. It is probably true that one of the reasons we have so much fun together and we play so well together is we don't have the limitation of the keyboard to slow our communication. However, the game itself does have some bearing on the fun we have together. Some games suck so badly that even playing together can't make the game fun for us.
Shadowbane was one such game. And not because it was/is PvP based, but because the game mechanics sucked, big time. The user interface was clusy and annoying and the gameplay style was simply not appealing to us.
However, not all of our time in EQ is spent together. I play more in the day than she does. She goes to college during the day, I go at night, so one of us is usually home with the kids. And while the fun I have playing with my online friends may be less than when I play with my wife, I still have fun. Not ALL the time, but enough of the time to have kept me playing for well over 4 years.
Are there periods in which you don't play everquest for a while until they release new content? How many hours around do you play a week? (Just answer if its really little or if your more of an avg mmorpg gamer)
Well, while I know of alot of people who stop playing over and over, but come back every time a new expansion is released, our time has been continuous. We aren't playing right now due to finacial limitations, but I hope to get another good paying job this month to fix that little snafu.
But does the game make socializing more fun than it would be otherwise I wonder. If so then I guess you could claim that a game could be made to maximize this and then claim that the game is perpetually fun. But socializing is just another type of pvp
Funny you should bring that up. My wife, like most other women, has her moods. When she's in a mood, she wont talk to anyone. She becomes very anti-social and just wants to kill shit. However, other times, to her, EQ is just a graphical chat room where she spends alot of time doing nothing but chatting with various people. And she has played games that were mostly socializing games. Underlight it was called, I think. In SW:G she played a dancer. While I was off hunting the wildlands of Tatooine, she was dancing her little butt off in a bar in Mos Eisley.
And when you joke its taking a gamble you might say something stupid but you might say something funny.
Heh, you should spend some time in the Plane of Knowledge in EQ. Alot of people /shout or /ooc (zone wide talking) thngs that are so stupid it's funny
Now, let me try to use logic to show your view, bear with me if it seems convoluted...
Let's start with your original statement: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based
PvP, by your definition, is any time players interact with other players. Using substitution, we then get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
A MMORPG is defined as a game where many plyers can play at any given time, can role play a character and interact with each other. Again, using substitution, we get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG.
Logically speaking, this works out nicely, doesn't it? The problem does not lie in your logic, and never has. The problem lies in your definitions. There is one point you bring up now that I must disagree with. Socializing is not Player versus Player. Exchanging information, strategy or equipment with other players is not Player versus Player (well, you could argue that if one player is attempting to mislead or cheat the other player, then that is PvP.) Two warriors comparing their total hit points is not Player versus Player. Friendly rivalry, maybe. In my view, these are examples of Player to Player interaction.
Player versus Player interaction, in my view, must be defined as: Any interaction between 2 or more players where 1 or more player is risking the loss of something valuable. Time, money/equipment earned, status. In other words, since there is a risk of loss for 1 or more players involved, any PvP encounter is inherently negative.
Again, lets take your original statement that we modified, above: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
Now lets add in the definition of PvP as I see it: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other in a negative way.
Now, this makes the statement work out as such: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG with negative player to player interaction.
And that is something I simply can not agree with.