Hardcore gamers can inflict penalties on themselves to make games harder, but they don't. The game needs to be hard for EVERYONE to have fun. SELFISH? Of course it is.
Lance Armstrong could stab himself in the leg to make the race harder.
Tiger Woods could stab himself in the leg, to make golf harder.
But they don't. Seffish? Of course it is!
See how stupid that statement is? You could intentionally gimp your self but you don't, and that is selfish? WTF???!!
Or, let's say we make Tiger Woods play Putt Putt, instead of a Masters Torurnament, but he can blindfold himself and tie one hand behind his back.
THERE! Now, the putt putt game, is EXACTLY like the Masters Tournanment? Right? No of course not retard.
Yes, you want to play putt putt. We get it. But let the big boys play something a bit more challenging, rather than ask them to blind fold themselves and play putt putt.
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
RED: I know plenty of people who play hardcore but don't play every day. They'll play for 8 hours one day then not at all the next. Sure it's sacrificing some of their life, but no more than anyone else might put into a hobby over the course of a week. It is possible to play hardcore and still have a life.
Here, we butt up against the flexibility of the "hardcore" label. It means different things to different people, to me it implies much more regularity than you've suggested above .. hell, by your definition I could be considered hardcore, as I play an hour or two a night but can easily put in 8 hours on a dull Sunday.
BLUE: This is the biggest problem. For some reason everyone assumes that the primary desire of hardcore gamers is to exclude everyone else. They haven't considered that hardcore players might just have more fun doing something difficult. The fact that it excludes some players is just a byproduct of that.
I disagree. The ability to complete a 6 hour raid in three 2-hour chunks makes that raiding more casually accessible without compromising the hardcore playstyle. They can still complete the 6 hour raid as they did previously. All that's changed is that the raid no longer excludes casuals who can't put 6 hours a night in.
You're not considering that casuals want the same difficulty that hardcore players want.
You're also putting words in people's mouths. I claimed that I wanted forced grouping myself but I have no desire for a game that casuals can't play. I fail to see how forced grouping is anti-casual. If everyone is grouping all the time it is ridiculously easy to form a group. Grouping up to do things used to be one of the fundamnetal aspects of the genre but these days the majority of players fight tooth and nail to ensure that there is as little content requiring a group as possible.
Again, I must disagree. Forced grouping does not eliminate LFG downtimes.
GREEN: Ok first off you're deliberately using an example that skirts around the issues the OP was making. Time investment is indeed something that can be compromised on. But issues like forced grouping are not compromisable. The moment soloing becomes an option the majority of players go with that option. Since grouping requires more than one person, the player that wants to group now has less people to group with. On top of that the solo players will advance faster which means that those wanting to group are punished for doing so. There is no compromise here. Just because there is an option to group does not make it a viable one. The only times grouping is viable is when it is forced just like the only time people regularly group in WoW is when they are forced to for instances.
I'm familiar with this argument; it crops up regularly and it's always surprising to see how people just don't seem to see what they're saying here. You like grouping, so in order to maximise the number of people who you can group with, you want a game with no solo options. What do you think is going to happen? ..
Do you think that people whose preference is for solo play are going to come play a game that doesn't cater to that preference? .. by forcing grouping, you don't increase the pool of players available to join your groups. The soloers simply won't play your game.
And they're not alone. Very few people are so black and white in regards to their preferences. Most players enjoy both grouping and soloing .. you remove (either) one of those options, and these players are going to move to a game that offers more variety of gameplay as suits their preferences.
In a forced grouping game, you will have less people to group with.
Secondly why can't you accomplish anything in an hour? This is another problem of the casual mindset. They don't feel like they have accomplished anything unless they get a big fat quest reward or a level ding all in one sitting. You're still accomplishing something if you're making progress. If you earn just 1 xp you've accomplished more than you had before you logged in. What casual gamers want is not to accomplish something in that time, they can already do that, they just want it easy enough for them to feel like they are accomplishing as much in a short time as a hardcore gamer might in a long play session.
I remember the epic quests I've gone on in many older MMOs. I would probably only manage to update a few stages of the quest in a night (and these quests had many many stages to them). Just that felt like an accomplishment. I didn't have to finish the quest to feel accomplished. When I actually did finish one of those quests though... well it felt one hell of a lot better to see a few weeks worth of work pay off compared to 5 minutes worth in WoW. This is the sort of thing 'hardcore' gamers want a return to. They're not making these arguments just to try and exclude casuals.
Back to the strawman. We don't want it easy, we want it in manageable chunks of time.
Raiding is a good example here; we want the same raid instance that you have. Identical. Same mobs, same bosses, same rewards. We want the exact same challenges that you face BUT .. we can't devote a full 6 hours at a time towards achieving it. That's all.
Orange highlight here? .. that's exactly what we want too. Challenging and epic content that can be cut into segments that we can complete during the time we have available.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
I disagree.
Example: Casual player A wants to be able to complete content or reach "save points" in long dungeons, so that he can still enjoy the same game as everyone else, and still have a life. Developer's cater to the casual player, but what does the hardcore suffer? Nothing, since the nature of the content didn't change, just the time required to invest into the game in one sitting.
Example: Player A doesn't like FFA PvP, because the game caters to sociopaths that get their jollies off making another persons game experience miserable. So the developers create safe areas, such as cities and certain zones being off limits. Player A can level up through the safe zones to max level if he wants to. How does this hurt Player B, who likes FFA PvP? It doesn't, because Player A is an extra subscriber that ordinarily wouldn't have played the FFA PvP game to begin with. Because of Player A and his ilk, the game has more funding, and both Player A and Player B gets more features.
Example: Player A doesn't like to group all the time. In fact, there are times he just wants to solo. Player B only likes to solo, but plays MMO's for the socialization and the in game economy. Player C only likes to group. Developer's allow the ability to advance through the game solo or grouped. Grouping grants better rewards (blue gear, instead of green solo quest gear), and there's a good grouping system in the game. Does Player C suffer? No, because Player A and Player B would simply leave the game for another game that caters to them if the game was too group centric. This has happened to every MMORPG that focused solely on grouping.
Comprimise is a Lose Lose situation, this is true. I don't think anyone is comprimising anything. You need subscribers to keep a game running, yes? Then you need to appeal to a broad enough audience to turn a profit. The more you broaden that audience, the more features you need to include in the game to satisfy them all. So esentially, you should be getting a bigger and better game than if the developer's decided just to focus on your niche, that only like X, Y, Z in a game. You and yor ilk doesn't need to comprimise, because X, Y, Z is still in the game. Those that ordinarily wouldn't of played the same game as you can now do T, U, V, while you do X, Y, Z. Now everyone gets what they want.
What you want is for developer's to only build games that you want, and force everyone else to pay to play them. Ask yourself, do you really think people will choose to play those games for long, or will they just move on to something else?
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
But there is a point, and it is valid- as you yourself have stated. Whether one agrees with the delivery doesn't change anything.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
Exactly.
The Tour De France is a 2,200 mile, 3,500 km race. You're saying that if you ad an eaiser route to the Tour De France, like one lap around the block, less than a 1/4 mile, it has NO effect on the race?
Are you seriously saying, this doesn't affect the Tour De France? A 2,200 mile race can now be done by anyone that is fat and overweight, by riding around the block on a bike, one time and they get the same trophy as Lance Armstrong?
You think, the Tour De France would be EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same amount of prestige, the EXACT same amount of sponsors, and television coverage, when a fat guy wins the trophy riding around the block one time?
This is your statement, that adding an easier way to the top doesn't affect the hardcore.
Care to explain how adding an easier route to the Tour De France doesn't affect teh race at all?
You seriously think this doesn't change ANYTHING at all by adding an easier route, and saying it's equal to the 2,200 mile route? Really?
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
Exactly.
The Tour De France is a 2,200 mile, 3,500 km race. You're saying that if you ad an eaiser route to the Tour De France, like one lap around the block, less than a 1/4 mile, it has NO effect on the race?
Are you seriously saying, this doesn't affect the Tour De France? A 2,200 mile race can now be done by anyone that is fat and overweight, by riding around the block on a bike, one time and they get the same trophy as Lance Armstrong?
You think, the Tour De France would be EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same amount of prestige, the EXACT same amount of sponsors, and television coverage, when a fat guy wins the trophy riding around the block one time?
This is your statement, that adding an easier way to the top doesn't affect the hardcore.
Care to explain how adding an easier route to the Tour De France doesn't affect teh race at all?
You seriously think this doesn't change ANYTHING at all by adding an easier route, and saying it's equal to the 2,200 mile route? Really?
Yeah people are going to be lining up to pay for that.......LOL unless I'm mistaken many more people run much smaller races, all the time, and have much fun : )
You're right though it is about choice, and most people choose not to run the Tour De France LOL
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
Exactly.
The Tour De France is a 2,200 mile, 3,500 km race. You're saying that if you ad an eaiser route to the Tour De France, like one lap around the block, less than a 1/4 mile, it has NO effect on the race?
Are you seriously saying, this doesn't affect the Tour De France? A 2,200 mile race can now be done by anyone that is fat and overweight, by riding around the block on a bike, one time and they get the same trophy as Lance Armstrong?
You think, the Tour De France would be EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same amount of prestige, the EXACT same amount of sponsors, and television coverage, when a fat guy wins the trophy riding around the block one time?
This is your statement, that adding an easier way to the top doesn't affect the hardcore.
Care to explain how adding an easier route to the Tour De France doesn't affect teh race at all?
You seriously think this doesn't change ANYTHING at all by adding an easier route, and saying it's equal to the 2,200 mile route? Really?
Yeah people are going to be lining up to pay for that.......LOL unless I'm mistaken many more people run much smaller races, all the time, and have much fun : )
You're right though it is about choice, and most people choose not to run the Tour De France LOL
IMO, tha'ts off topic.
If you want to discuss WoW subscription numbers, versus EVE subscription numbers, and so on, please make a topic for it.
The topic here is if adding an easier route, affects the harder route.
I think I've shown conclusively with the example above, that it DOES.
What's that got to do with subscription numbers?
Either adding the easier route, affects the game, or it doesn't.
Do you admit that adding the easier route affects the game? If so, then we are in agreement.
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
Exactly.
The Tour De France is a 2,200 mile, 3,500 km race. You're saying that if you ad an eaiser route to the Tour De France, like one lap around the block, less than a 1/4 mile, it has NO effect on the race?
Are you seriously saying, this doesn't affect the Tour De France? A 2,200 mile race can now be done by anyone that is fat and overweight, by riding around the block on a bike, one time and they get the same trophy as Lance Armstrong?
You think, the Tour De France would be EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same amount of prestige, the EXACT same amount of sponsors, and television coverage, when a fat guy wins the trophy riding around the block one time?
This is your statement, that adding an easier way to the top doesn't affect the hardcore.
Care to explain how adding an easier route to the Tour De France doesn't affect teh race at all?
You seriously think this doesn't change ANYTHING at all by adding an easier route, and saying it's equal to the 2,200 mile route? Really?
Yeah people are going to be lining up to pay for that.......LOL unless I'm mistaken many more people run much smaller races, all the time, and have much fun : )
You're right though it is about choice, and most people choose not to run the Tour De France LOL
IMO, tha'ts off topic.
If you want to discuss WoW subscription numbers, versus EVE subscription numbers, and so on, please make a topic for it.
The topic here is if adding an easier route, affects the harder route.
I think I've shown conclusively with the example above, that it DOES.
What's that got to do with subscription numbers?
Either adding the easier route, affects the game, or it doesn't.
Do you admit that adding the easier route affects the game? If so, then we are in agreement.
And all those people that go out every weekend and ride there easier rides don't make the Tour De France possible? I can just imagine the state of biking if Lance Armstrong got up an said, if you're not running with me you s*ck and are hurting the game. Seems pretty on topic to me!
But yeah, I don't completely disagree. Everyone is tempted to sell out their principles if they become successful.
And all those people that go out every weekend and ride there easier rides don't make the Tour De France possible? I can just imagine the state of biking if Lance Armstrong got up an said, if you're not running with me you s*ck and are hurting the game. Seems pretty on topic to me!
So you agree with me that adding an easier route, DOES affect the game, and you disagree with the people in this thread that said adding an easier route to the game doesn't affect it at all, as long as you leave a harder route in the game somewhere?
And all those people that go out every weekend and ride there easier rides don't make the Tour De France possible? I can just imagine the state of biking if Lance Armstrong got up an said, if you're not running with me you s*ck and are hurting the game. Seems pretty on topic to me!
So you agree with me that adding an easier route, DOES affect the game, and you disagree with the people in this thread that said adding an easier route to the game doesn't affect it at all, as long as you leave a harder route in the game somewhere?
Yes it affects the game. It makes the game about the balance between the two play styles. My point is that being only too easy, or only too hard is equally bad.
And Just having a route in a game that's basically one way or the other, is just be lame.
And all those people that go out every weekend and ride there easier rides don't make the Tour De France possible? I can just imagine the state of biking if Lance Armstrong got up an said, if you're not running with me you s*ck and are hurting the game. Seems pretty on topic to me!
So you agree with me that adding an easier route, DOES affect the game, and you disagree with the people in this thread that said adding an easier route to the game doesn't affect it at all, as long as you leave a harder route in the game somewhere?
Yes it affects the game. It makes the game about the balance between the two play styles. My point is that being only too easy, or only too hard is equally bad.
And Just having a route in a game that's basically one way or the other, is just be lame.
I agree. it's just silly to say adding an easier route to the top in a game doesn't affect "hardcore" play, and that the hardcore crowd can still just go use the hard core route.
It completely changes the game.
It's retarded to make statements like, well if you want perma death delete your character.
Obviously, this is just some imaginary game someone is playing in their head, and not a perma death MMORPG.
Tthat example is the same for all self imposed restrictions, or the same for all cases of using a harder route, when an easier one exists.
The game code is what the game code is, not what you pretend the game to be in your mind.
The most disingenious part of these sorts of arguments, is that the player suggesting it, ALWAYS wants soemeone els eto pretend the rules are something different than what they are, never themselves.
For exmaple, you could just as easily say, well play a perma death game, and just pretend you new character is the same as the old one with a different name. Just pretend your character didn't die, and you changed his name and he started a new career.
There, now you should be happy playing a perma death game. Why are you complaining? You just dont' want to use your imagination!
You have to understand that MMOs are a business. To be honest it is important to have compromise to keep games afloat. You really have to understand that games are still challenging despite the ability to play the game any way that you want to.
If a niche market still has a few tens (or hundreds) of thousands of players, it can still profit. Obviously, even niche games have enough players to be popular. (Darkfall for example)
So this is like saying "We already have a Hardware store and a Car sales lot; why would we need a bakery? Stores are businesses, we should sell hammers and humvees in every burger king."
You have to understand that MMOs are a business. To be honest it is important to have compromise to keep games afloat. You really have to understand that games are still challenging despite the ability to play the game any way that you want to.
If a niche market still has a few tens (or hundreds) of thousands of players, it can still profit. Obviously, even niche games have enough players to be popular. (Darkfall for example)
So this is like saying "We already have a Hardware store and a Car sales lot; why would we need a bakery? Stores are businesses, we should sell hammers and humvees in every burger king."
Actually your first statement is conditional. A niche market can be profitible if and only ifyour revenue covers your costs - this is the primary determinant whether a company stays or goes - not hundreds or tens of thousands of players.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
LOL. I stopped reading there.
Ok, you want people to be able to turn off PvP? Then you will get carebears hanging out on PvP servers and turning off a switch.
Fact is, the PvP servers should be a badge. If you get max level on a PvP server, it should mean something. And if you are gonna allow people to just turn off PvP when they don't feel like it, well, you will get a lot of carebears getting max level and telling you how hardcore they are.
Carebears should be on carebear servers. PvP servers are for people who can put up with PvP at any time.
They do have a choice, pick a server that is labeled carebear. Don't even come on the PvP servers, because PvPers don't want whiny carebears on their server who just turn off the PvP all the time.
I don't understand why carebears think that it is ok to just turn off PvP. Kind of eliminates the whole point of having a PvP server. So a suggestion is if you're a carebear stick to a carebear server, thanks
If you'd bothered to read the post with your cerebral cortex engaged, you'd realise that you and the OP share the same opinion. Which, frankly, the OP should be concerned about.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
If you'd bothered to read the post with your cerebral cortex engaged, you'd realise that you and the OP share the same opinion. Which, frankly, the OP should be concerned about.
Haven't you heard? Hardcore players don't use their cerebral cortex because it's a sign of weakness - easymode if you will. Only casuals use that. Hardcores prefer the old-fashioned tried-and-true method of mindlessly headbashing fiction until it becomes fact - to them anyway.
If you'd bothered to read the post with your cerebral cortex engaged, you'd realise that you and the OP share the same opinion. Which, frankly, the OP should be concerned about.
Ok, I read the second half of his post.
Why should he be concerned? People need to stick with their own kind imo. Why would I want a carebear on my server? Why would a carebear want a PvPer on their server? Why would a casual want a person who enjoys a challenging game on their server?
Different types of players. The MMORPGs need to be made with specific audiences in mind.
WoW was designed for Casuals and Carebears, and not anyone else unfortunately.
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
Exactly.
The Tour De France is a 2,200 mile, 3,500 km race. You're saying that if you ad an eaiser route to the Tour De France, like one lap around the block, less than a 1/4 mile, it has NO effect on the race?
Are you seriously saying, this doesn't affect the Tour De France? A 2,200 mile race can now be done by anyone that is fat and overweight, by riding around the block on a bike, one time and they get the same trophy as Lance Armstrong?
You think, the Tour De France would be EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same amount of prestige, the EXACT same amount of sponsors, and television coverage, when a fat guy wins the trophy riding around the block one time?
This is your statement, that adding an easier way to the top doesn't affect the hardcore.
Care to explain how adding an easier route to the Tour De France doesn't affect teh race at all?
You seriously think this doesn't change ANYTHING at all by adding an easier route, and saying it's equal to the 2,200 mile route? Really?
No no and no.
It would be more like casual players not being upset if a tour de france was added to the game as long as they are not forced to ride in it. Opting to not participate is also a choice. Those who chose to ride in the race have the chace to reap the rewards.
There are hard mode raids and most have no trouble with never participating in them. They have plenty of enjoyment doing whatever else they want. See?
If you'd bothered to read the post with your cerebral cortex engaged, you'd realise that you and the OP share the same opinion. Which, frankly, the OP should be concerned about.
Ok, I read the second half of his post.
Why should he be concerned? People need to stick with their own kind imo. Why would I want a carebear on my server? Why would a carebear want a PvPer on their server? Why would a casual want a person who enjoys a challenging game on their server?
Different types of players. The MMORPGs need to be made with specific audiences in mind.
WoW was designed for Casuals and Carebears, and not anyone else unfortunately.
Straight back to trolling, I see.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
And all those people that go out every weekend and ride there easier rides don't make the Tour De France possible? I can just imagine the state of biking if Lance Armstrong got up an said, if you're not running with me you s*ck and are hurting the game. Seems pretty on topic to me!
So you agree with me that adding an easier route, DOES affect the game, and you disagree with the people in this thread that said adding an easier route to the game doesn't affect it at all, as long as you leave a harder route in the game somewhere?
Yes it affects the game. It makes the game about the balance between the two play styles. My point is that being only too easy, or only too hard is equally bad.
And Just having a route in a game that's basically one way or the other, is just be lame.
It effects the game in a bad way for someone. If im doing it the hard way and then someone does it the easy way, it makes all my hard work feel worthless and a waste of time. I don't get a more awesome prize for my hard work so why the fuck should I take more time and more effort to get the same thing. So bacially it forces people that like to do things the hard way into doing things the easy way because its smarter because if they have common sense then they would do things in the most efficent way. Then the hard way would be come obselete, and people may even want it even more easier than before.
I say in a game, if you choose to have a hard way and easier way you have to have the right rewards that go along with it. Its not fair for someone to get the same reward for doing something 2 times as hard. They should get something better for the more effort they put in. Other wise it would just be plain dumb.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
Well, don't you have enough challenge in your real life so you don't need a video game to provide that? II always have a way to do something to challenge myself and am rarely ever bored. If I start feeling bored, I go do something rather than wait for some game to provide it for me.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
Well, don't you have enough challenge in your real life so you don't need a video game to provide that? II always have a way to do something to challenge myself and am rarely ever bored. If I start feeling bored, I go do something rather than wait for some game to provide it for me.
What are you even arguing for?
You want all people to play the same game/server with the same settings?
As I said, carebears belong on their own servers away from PvPers.
Casuals belong in easy mode games like WoW, away from games that have any chalenge or encounter that takes longer than 5 minutes.
I guess you argument is "Games should be boring and not have challenge, because the casuals or carebears can't handle challenge in a game, or in real life"
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
Exactly.
The Tour De France is a 2,200 mile, 3,500 km race. You're saying that if you ad an eaiser route to the Tour De France, like one lap around the block, less than a 1/4 mile, it has NO effect on the race?
Are you seriously saying, this doesn't affect the Tour De France? A 2,200 mile race can now be done by anyone that is fat and overweight, by riding around the block on a bike, one time and they get the same trophy as Lance Armstrong?
You think, the Tour De France would be EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same amount of prestige, the EXACT same amount of sponsors, and television coverage, when a fat guy wins the trophy riding around the block one time?
This is your statement, that adding an easier way to the top doesn't affect the hardcore.
Care to explain how adding an easier route to the Tour De France doesn't affect teh race at all?
You seriously think this doesn't change ANYTHING at all by adding an easier route, and saying it's equal to the 2,200 mile route? Really?
No no and no.
It would be more like casual players not being upset if a tour de france was added to the game as long as they are not forced to ride in it. Opting to not participate is also a choice. Those who chose to ride in the race have the chace to reap the rewards.
There are hard mode raids and most have no trouble with never participating in them. They have plenty of enjoyment doing whatever else they want. See?
No, no and no.
Casuals ALWAYS state they ARE forced to ride it, becuase they always state they have to get the SAME rewards.
You want the SAME trophy as Lance Armstrong, but you want to ride around the block to get it? And you think Lance Armstrong would STILL be just as rewarded by riding 2,200 miles to get the EXACT same trophy?
Comments
Lance Armstrong could stab himself in the leg to make the race harder.
Tiger Woods could stab himself in the leg, to make golf harder.
But they don't. Seffish? Of course it is!
See how stupid that statement is? You could intentionally gimp your self but you don't, and that is selfish? WTF???!!
Or, let's say we make Tiger Woods play Putt Putt, instead of a Masters Torurnament, but he can blindfold himself and tie one hand behind his back.
THERE! Now, the putt putt game, is EXACTLY like the Masters Tournanment? Right? No of course not retard.
Yes, you want to play putt putt. We get it. But let the big boys play something a bit more challenging, rather than ask them to blind fold themselves and play putt putt.
Ihmotepp, you are awesome :þ (referring to the "winner", "loserville" and "putt putt" posts)
Back to subject, a lot of posters just don't get it. They think with the casual mentality and can't see the other side of the fence. Why should they care about it right? Afterall, there are very few games that don't catter to them. But yet, even though we simply ask for newer MMOs to catter to us, they go and complain about how it's not possible, it won't work and it doesn't make any sense. If an MMO doesn't fit the casual audience, it will fail!
No one is asking for your current casual MMO to become Hardcore, we want more MMOs that catters to the hardcore audience. So you can stop complaining and go back to WoW! If you like to play a WoW-like game, then so be it. But don't try force us to play the same game.
Oh and don't bring that "Well if you want Hardcore death penality, just delete your gear when you die!" argument (nor any similar arguments), possibly the worst hypocrit comment I've ever heard.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Hardcore advocates seem to be repeating that anything casual ruins their gameplay and has no place in their game whatsoever and somehow is ruining their fun factor in the genre.
Casual players say that adding harder elements to their game doesn't bother them as long as they are not forced into doing them.
I don't think there is a lot of meeting in the middle between the two sides as you suggest, but if you ask me I wouldn't go waggling fingers at casual players for not caring or getting it. The hardcore message being repeated in this thread is rather abrasive and self centered beyond concern of anyone else. It shouldn't really be surprising that others are not getting on board with the tone of this thread.
Not that deep down it there isn't a valid point, because there is, but otherwise it isn't very inviting to compassion from other players.
I disagree.
Example: Casual player A wants to be able to complete content or reach "save points" in long dungeons, so that he can still enjoy the same game as everyone else, and still have a life. Developer's cater to the casual player, but what does the hardcore suffer? Nothing, since the nature of the content didn't change, just the time required to invest into the game in one sitting.
Example: Player A doesn't like FFA PvP, because the game caters to sociopaths that get their jollies off making another persons game experience miserable. So the developers create safe areas, such as cities and certain zones being off limits. Player A can level up through the safe zones to max level if he wants to. How does this hurt Player B, who likes FFA PvP? It doesn't, because Player A is an extra subscriber that ordinarily wouldn't have played the FFA PvP game to begin with. Because of Player A and his ilk, the game has more funding, and both Player A and Player B gets more features.
Example: Player A doesn't like to group all the time. In fact, there are times he just wants to solo. Player B only likes to solo, but plays MMO's for the socialization and the in game economy. Player C only likes to group. Developer's allow the ability to advance through the game solo or grouped. Grouping grants better rewards (blue gear, instead of green solo quest gear), and there's a good grouping system in the game. Does Player C suffer? No, because Player A and Player B would simply leave the game for another game that caters to them if the game was too group centric. This has happened to every MMORPG that focused solely on grouping.
Comprimise is a Lose Lose situation, this is true. I don't think anyone is comprimising anything. You need subscribers to keep a game running, yes? Then you need to appeal to a broad enough audience to turn a profit. The more you broaden that audience, the more features you need to include in the game to satisfy them all. So esentially, you should be getting a bigger and better game than if the developer's decided just to focus on your niche, that only like X, Y, Z in a game. You and yor ilk doesn't need to comprimise, because X, Y, Z is still in the game. Those that ordinarily wouldn't of played the same game as you can now do T, U, V, while you do X, Y, Z. Now everyone gets what they want.
What you want is for developer's to only build games that you want, and force everyone else to pay to play them. Ask yourself, do you really think people will choose to play those games for long, or will they just move on to something else?
But there is a point, and it is valid- as you yourself have stated. Whether one agrees with the delivery doesn't change anything.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Exactly.
The Tour De France is a 2,200 mile, 3,500 km race. You're saying that if you ad an eaiser route to the Tour De France, like one lap around the block, less than a 1/4 mile, it has NO effect on the race?
Are you seriously saying, this doesn't affect the Tour De France? A 2,200 mile race can now be done by anyone that is fat and overweight, by riding around the block on a bike, one time and they get the same trophy as Lance Armstrong?
You think, the Tour De France would be EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same amount of prestige, the EXACT same amount of sponsors, and television coverage, when a fat guy wins the trophy riding around the block one time?
This is your statement, that adding an easier way to the top doesn't affect the hardcore.
Care to explain how adding an easier route to the Tour De France doesn't affect teh race at all?
You seriously think this doesn't change ANYTHING at all by adding an easier route, and saying it's equal to the 2,200 mile route? Really?
Yeah people are going to be lining up to pay for that.......LOL unless I'm mistaken many more people run much smaller races, all the time, and have much fun : )
You're right though it is about choice, and most people choose not to run the Tour De France LOL
IMO, tha'ts off topic.
If you want to discuss WoW subscription numbers, versus EVE subscription numbers, and so on, please make a topic for it.
The topic here is if adding an easier route, affects the harder route.
I think I've shown conclusively with the example above, that it DOES.
What's that got to do with subscription numbers?
Either adding the easier route, affects the game, or it doesn't.
Do you admit that adding the easier route affects the game? If so, then we are in agreement.
And all those people that go out every weekend and ride there easier rides don't make the Tour De France possible? I can just imagine the state of biking if Lance Armstrong got up an said, if you're not running with me you s*ck and are hurting the game. Seems pretty on topic to me!
But yeah, I don't completely disagree. Everyone is tempted to sell out their principles if they become successful.
So you agree with me that adding an easier route, DOES affect the game, and you disagree with the people in this thread that said adding an easier route to the game doesn't affect it at all, as long as you leave a harder route in the game somewhere?
Yes it affects the game. It makes the game about the balance between the two play styles. My point is that being only too easy, or only too hard is equally bad.
And Just having a route in a game that's basically one way or the other, is just be lame.
I agree. it's just silly to say adding an easier route to the top in a game doesn't affect "hardcore" play, and that the hardcore crowd can still just go use the hard core route.
It completely changes the game.
It's retarded to make statements like, well if you want perma death delete your character.
Obviously, this is just some imaginary game someone is playing in their head, and not a perma death MMORPG.
Tthat example is the same for all self imposed restrictions, or the same for all cases of using a harder route, when an easier one exists.
The game code is what the game code is, not what you pretend the game to be in your mind.
The most disingenious part of these sorts of arguments, is that the player suggesting it, ALWAYS wants soemeone els eto pretend the rules are something different than what they are, never themselves.
For exmaple, you could just as easily say, well play a perma death game, and just pretend you new character is the same as the old one with a different name. Just pretend your character didn't die, and you changed his name and he started a new career.
There, now you should be happy playing a perma death game. Why are you complaining? You just dont' want to use your imagination!
If a niche market still has a few tens (or hundreds) of thousands of players, it can still profit. Obviously, even niche games have enough players to be popular. (Darkfall for example)
So this is like saying "We already have a Hardware store and a Car sales lot; why would we need a bakery? Stores are businesses, we should sell hammers and humvees in every burger king."
Actually your first statement is conditional. A niche market can be profitible if and only if your revenue covers your costs - this is the primary determinant whether a company stays or goes - not hundreds or tens of thousands of players.
LOL. I stopped reading there.
Ok, you want people to be able to turn off PvP? Then you will get carebears hanging out on PvP servers and turning off a switch.
Fact is, the PvP servers should be a badge. If you get max level on a PvP server, it should mean something. And if you are gonna allow people to just turn off PvP when they don't feel like it, well, you will get a lot of carebears getting max level and telling you how hardcore they are.
Carebears should be on carebear servers. PvP servers are for people who can put up with PvP at any time.
They do have a choice, pick a server that is labeled carebear. Don't even come on the PvP servers, because PvPers don't want whiny carebears on their server who just turn off the PvP all the time.
I don't understand why carebears think that it is ok to just turn off PvP. Kind of eliminates the whole point of having a PvP server. So a suggestion is if you're a carebear stick to a carebear server, thanks
If you'd bothered to read the post with your cerebral cortex engaged, you'd realise that you and the OP share the same opinion. Which, frankly, the OP should be concerned about.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Haven't you heard? Hardcore players don't use their cerebral cortex because it's a sign of weakness - easymode if you will. Only casuals use that. Hardcores prefer the old-fashioned tried-and-true method of mindlessly headbashing fiction until it becomes fact - to them anyway.
Ok, I read the second half of his post.
Why should he be concerned? People need to stick with their own kind imo. Why would I want a carebear on my server? Why would a carebear want a PvPer on their server? Why would a casual want a person who enjoys a challenging game on their server?
Different types of players. The MMORPGs need to be made with specific audiences in mind.
WoW was designed for Casuals and Carebears, and not anyone else unfortunately.
No no and no.
It would be more like casual players not being upset if a tour de france was added to the game as long as they are not forced to ride in it. Opting to not participate is also a choice. Those who chose to ride in the race have the chace to reap the rewards.
There are hard mode raids and most have no trouble with never participating in them. They have plenty of enjoyment doing whatever else they want. See?
Straight back to trolling, I see.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
It effects the game in a bad way for someone. If im doing it the hard way and then someone does it the easy way, it makes all my hard work feel worthless and a waste of time. I don't get a more awesome prize for my hard work so why the fuck should I take more time and more effort to get the same thing. So bacially it forces people that like to do things the hard way into doing things the easy way because its smarter because if they have common sense then they would do things in the most efficent way. Then the hard way would be come obselete, and people may even want it even more easier than before.
I say in a game, if you choose to have a hard way and easier way you have to have the right rewards that go along with it. Its not fair for someone to get the same reward for doing something 2 times as hard. They should get something better for the more effort they put in. Other wise it would just be plain dumb.
Well, don't you have enough challenge in your real life so you don't need a video game to provide that? II always have a way to do something to challenge myself and am rarely ever bored. If I start feeling bored, I go do something rather than wait for some game to provide it for me.
What are you even arguing for?
You want all people to play the same game/server with the same settings?
As I said, carebears belong on their own servers away from PvPers.
Casuals belong in easy mode games like WoW, away from games that have any chalenge or encounter that takes longer than 5 minutes.
I guess you argument is "Games should be boring and not have challenge, because the casuals or carebears can't handle challenge in a game, or in real life"
No, no and no.
Casuals ALWAYS state they ARE forced to ride it, becuase they always state they have to get the SAME rewards.
You want the SAME trophy as Lance Armstrong, but you want to ride around the block to get it? And you think Lance Armstrong would STILL be just as rewarded by riding 2,200 miles to get the EXACT same trophy?
No, no and NO!