Forced grouping, forced pvp, forced pve progression, forced rulesets, forced this and forced that! How is that freedom? You want your freedom but constantly champion forced mechanics on others. I feel more restricted than ever...
I think it depensd on the game and what players want.
Forced pvp is not forced if everyone who has signed on to the game understand the rules and desire that rule set.
The forced grouping thing is a bit more murky for me. I think it's ok for games to have content that require groups and the particular dynamic that grouping brings.
However, I do think that games should have solo content.
One of the reasons I loved lineage 2 is that there were areas that required groups. However one could also solo to their heart's content. as far as particular drops that could be gotten in these grouping areas, they could be sold so that players who didn't group could still have access to them.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I hate the 'forced X' terminology because it seems to me it is meant by the majority to imply something in a negative context. A lot of things that people say are "forced" in these games I enjoy so to me it isn't forced.
When I think of being'forced' to do something that implies I have to take part in the action regardless what I want to do. Fact is I do want to do these things so for me on a personal level there is no forced mechanics.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I'm really confused what this thread is really all about.
It's just a convoluted way of saying "If you don't play a game by my rules then you aren't for freedom. Your rules stink". It's a continuation of the 1960's memes full of institutionalized selfishness.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
There is a restricted freedom in mmo's and basically your forced to either group up with others hence the Massive Multi Online, or your restricted to where you can explore because of your level. Even in FFA mmo's your still restricted to forced mechanics because that's how they are made. The industry can't change that right now and won't even look into it for a long time.
I'm sorry but Massive multi player on line does not mean forced grouping. I don't know where you pulled that from...
FFA certainly isn't more freedom to anyone else other than players that want to kill other players that simply want no part of that type of game play. True freedom is giving the the above mention players areas I'n which to pvp while the ones that don't want to be harassed play In a more relaxed and less imposing area of the game. But these FFA thugs won't admit that because then it would take Away skillless easy kills.
Actually FFA is the epitomy of freedom. You are free, after all, to stay in the safe haven/sanctuary should they be provided of course. You are also free to roam outside those areas.....alone or with company. The fact that if you do so alone also endangers your character's life is irrelevant. The important thing here is the freedom of choice to go where you want right?
This makes no sense, its like putting someone in the middle of a minefield then telling them they have the freedom to move around as they please, going by that logic everyone in the world is free right now, as there all free to do whatever they want, even if it means getting shot.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
I'm really confused what this thread is really all about.
It's just a convoluted way of saying "If you don't play a game by my rules then you aren't for freedom. Your rules stink".
What the hell? The thread is about freedom equals choice. Alot of people wanting freedom I'n there games continually want forced features on players. I don't know how else to explain myself...
I'm really confused what this thread is really all about.
It's just a convoluted way of saying "If you don't play a game by my rules then you aren't for freedom. Your rules stink".
What the hell? The thread is about freedom equals choice. Alot of people wanting freedom I'n there games continually want forced features on players. I don't know how else to explain myself...
You forget your on the internet, everyone reads the title and assumes they knowq whats going on.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
I'm really confused what this thread is really all about.
It's just a convoluted way of saying "If you don't play a game by my rules then you aren't for freedom. Your rules stink".
What the hell? The thread is about freedom equals choice. Alot of people wanting freedom I'n there games continually want forced features on players. I don't know how else to explain myself...
You can't explain it because what you suggest is pretty contradictory.
In order to avoid the (so called) restriction of being in a group to exit certain town in the MMO you mentioned you have to place a restriction on the players that are a source of danger to you.
Basically you don't want freedom, you want the restrictions that are more convenient to you.
I actually feel "forced" to solo most of the time.
That may be a personal issue. Maybe you lack the social skills to connect with people on a certain level so you can group with others... As of right now every mmo that is solo friendly also gives you the option to group.
FFA certainly isn't more freedom to anyone else other than players that want to kill other players that simply want no part of that type of game play. True freedom is giving the the above mention players areas I'n which to pvp while the ones that don't want to be harassed play In a more relaxed and less imposing area of the game. But these FFA thugs won't admit that because then it would take Away skillless easy kills.
Actually FFA is the epitomy of freedom. You are free, after all, to stay in the safe haven/sanctuary should they be provided of course. You are also free to roam outside those areas.....alone or with company. The fact that if you do so alone also endangers your character's life is irrelevant. The important thing here is the freedom of choice to go where you want right?
This makes no sense, its like putting someone in the middle of a minefield then telling them they have the freedom to move around as they please, going by that logic everyone in the world is free right now, as there all free to do whatever they want, even if it means getting shot.
It is freedom. Terrorists hate our freedom.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
I actually feel "forced" to solo most of the time.
That may be a personal issue. Maybe you lack the social skills to connect with people on a certain level so you can group with others... As of right now every mmo that is solo friendly also gives you the option to group.
Yeah that must be it, because any time I ask to group outside of endgame I get a typical response that it is faster and more efficient to solo. Who the hell wants to socialize in MMOs these days? It's all about getting to the top as fast as possible in order to start the gear treadmill.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Variety is the spice of life and if every game sticks to the same formula thigs would (did) get boring real fast.
Free for all pvp is a form freedom and it is a choice. Just because it may not allow you sanctuary from "ethugs" or it isn't the playstyle of your choice doesn't mean it is bad or forced. Restricting pvp to designated areas isn't pure freedom as you try to make it out to be. Just different game designs.
Some people choose to play games that offer team based gameplay which makes for more difficult encounters. Again, this is a choice.
I see I'm going to need to take this topic to mentally retarded paint by numbers levels for people to understand. I'll give an example. Im playing two mmos, In one mmo I can progress my character through solo play or grouping. I can explore the game world by myself or with friends, I can choose to pvp I'n dedicated areas or stick to pve areas and not worry about it. In mmo number two I'n order to get more than 100 yards beyond a city I need to LF a group, if I manage stray out of the safety of the city I get gang raped by ethugs... In which game do I have the freedom? Obviously it's game number 1. Yet the people that want freedom are pushing number 2 at us...
Depends on your perspective I suppose. If you are an e-thug game number 2 gives you the freedom to gang rape helpless victims where as game one deprives you of your fun.
Trick is finding a balance between the many groups of players out there and creating a fun game of it all.
But steering away from PVP and back to 'forced' grouping. DAOC had "encouraged" grouping. It was quite possible for a person to solo the entire game, I did it myself on occasion, (although some healing type classes really couldn't) however there were strong rewards and game mechanics which made grouping the way to go.
Everything from downtime mechanics such as health, stamina, mana regeneration timers which could be reduced if you had a group of players with the right skills, to reduced downtime from actually taking less damage in a group than vs solo which just sped everything up.
Add in bonuses for camps/groups and game mechanics that made pugging very viable and it made for a very social game.
Didn't stop anyone from soloing, again, I soloed at least 2 alts to 50 w/o any help (but great patience) however I don't think any games today (not even DAOC) support a similar symbiosis between players of the community.
No, total freedom isn't always the desired goal of MMORPG's, at least in my mind.
I just want a choice. If I wanna pvp with friends I would like someplace to do it, if I feel like solo questing without the fear of getting jumped I want that too. I'm all about choice. This is why I loved eve so much I could do what I want without other peoples preferred gameplay getting I'n my way. Lotro is like that also. I can level up, run dungeons, group up and raid until I'm blue I'n the face or I could solo, work on crafting and queue up for solo skirmishes if I want. Give me options, give me a choice don't push mechanics on me that I don't want to be apart of. For me that's how mmorpgs should be.
I just want a choice. If I wanna pvp with friends I would like someplace to do it, if I feel like solo questing without the fear of getting jumped I want that too. I'm all about choice. This is why I loved eve so much I could do what I want without other peoples preferred gameplay getting I'n my way. Lotro is like that also. I can level up, run dungeons, group up and raid until I'm blue I'n the face or I could solo, work on crafting and queue up for solo skirmishes if I want. Give me options, give me a choice don't push mechanics on me that I don't want to be apart of. For me that's how mmorpgs should be.
Keep in mind that all of your freedoms only exist as the result of restrictions to other players. Are you really talking about true freedom or your preference in game mechanics?
I actually feel "forced" to solo most of the time.
That may be a personal issue. Maybe you lack the social skills to connect with people on a certain level so you can group with others... As of right now every mmo that is solo friendly also gives you the option to group.
Yeah that must be it, because any time I ask to group outside of endgame I get a typical response that it is faster and more efficient to solo. Who the hell wants to socialize in MMOs these days? It's all about getting to the top as fast as possible in order to start the gear treadmill.
I have no issues getting questing buddies I'n my current game. I'm generally liked And aren't a fuck tard when people mess up so I have a to. Of friends. I run dungeons, complete group quests and even lend a hand to newbies. I simply ask I'n a nice way and while we're grouped I'm friendly and social. Again it's probably a combination of a way your going about your social activities and bad luck I'n have anti-socials I'n that area when u ask.
FFA certainly isn't more freedom to anyone else other than players that want to kill other players that simply want no part of that type of game play. True freedom is giving the the above mention players areas I'n which to pvp while the ones that don't want to be harassed play In a more relaxed and less imposing area of the game. But these FFA thugs won't admit that because then it would take Away skillless easy kills.
Actually FFA is the epitomy of freedom. You are free, after all, to stay in the safe haven/sanctuary should they be provided of course. You are also free to roam outside those areas.....alone or with company. The fact that if you do so alone also endangers your character's life is irrelevant. The important thing here is the freedom of choice to go where you want right?
This makes no sense, its like putting someone in the middle of a minefield then telling them they have the freedom to move around as they please, going by that logic everyone in the world is free right now, as there all free to do whatever they want, even if it means getting shot.
Minefield?
Well I suppose if you consider yourself a mine by all means....
The fallacy with the ethugs arguments is the denial that you possess all the freedoms and "abilities" (in as much noone starts the game at max level) and potential as the ethugs.
The ethugs use their freedom to attack other players (simplistic description but it works). But exactly what seperates the notional ethug from the notional player? Nothing. The player has the same freedom to attack someone as the ethug does...
Indeed. If the player decides to wonder out of the safe zone and actively hunt down/pursue the ethug? He/she can. Vigilantism is a viable concept in a FFA environment.
But all this is really academic. The point is that FFA, for all it's upsides and downsides, represents the least restrictive gameplay environment. No rules just decisions and consequences. The primary game play mechanic in place is your actions. Obviously this isn't for everyone.
Game play mechanics that restrict this to a greater or lessor degree, are just that, mechanics designed to restrict (or as I mentioned "guide") the players experience. The same principle applies to "forced grouping". Some things are designed with a group in mind. Is it forced if you can only feasibly do it with a group (In otherwords, nothing keeping you from entering the instance alone, it'd just be pretty futile)? Is it really a bad thing?
Zones. Instances. Lockout timers, etc etc. They are all just gameplay mechanics devised to guide a player's experience. Nothing makes one any more or less valid or effective than another.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
Originally posted by Rockgod99 I just want a choice. If I wanna pvp with friends I would like someplace to do it, if I feel like solo questing without the fear of getting jumped I want that too. I'm all about choice. This is why I loved eve so much I could do what I want without other peoples preferred gameplay getting I'n my way. Lotro is like that also. I can level up, run dungeons, group up and raid until I'm blue I'n the face or I could solo, work on crafting and queue up for solo skirmishes if I want. Give me options, give me a choice don't push mechanics on me that I don't want to be apart of. For me that's how mmorpgs should be.
Keep in mind that all of your freedoms only exist as the result of restrictions to other players. Are you really talking about true freedom or your preference in game mechanics?
How is anything I said restricting anyone elses gameplay? They have a choice I'n how they want to play unless their choice is restricting and interupting other peoples way of playing... We call those people griefers and they only do that because they don't have the balls to mess with people that choose to be messed with.
I see I'm going to need to take this topic to mentally retarded paint by numbers levels for people to understand. I'll give an example. Im playing two mmos, In one mmo I can progress my character through solo play or grouping. I can explore the game world by myself or with friends, I can choose to pvp I'n dedicated areas or stick to pve areas and not worry about it. In mmo number two I'n order to get more than 100 yards beyond a city I need to LF a group, if I manage stray out of the safety of the city I get gang raped by ethugs... In which game do I have the freedom? Obviously it's game number 1. Yet the people that want freedom are pushing number 2 at us...
Depends on your perspective I suppose. If you are an e-thug game number 2 gives you the freedom to gang rape helpless victims where as game one deprives you of your fun.
Trick is finding a balance between the many groups of players out there and creating a fun game of it all.
But steering away from PVP and back to 'forced' grouping. DAOC had "encouraged" grouping. It was quite possible for a person to solo the entire game, I did it myself on occasion, (although some healing type classes really couldn't) however there were strong rewards and game mechanics which made grouping the way to go.
Everything from downtime mechanics such as health, stamina, mana regeneration timers which could be reduced if you had a group of players with the right skills, to reduced downtime from actually taking less damage in a group than vs solo which just sped everything up.
Add in bonuses for camps/groups and game mechanics that made pugging very viable and it made for a very social game.
Didn't stop anyone from soloing, again, I soloed at least 2 alts to 50 w/o any help (but great patience) however I don't think any games today (not even DAOC) support a similar symbiosis between players of the community.
No, total freedom isn't always the desired goal of MMORPG's, at least in my mind.
I just want a choice. If I wanna pvp with friends I would like someplace to do it, if I feel like solo questing without the fear of getting jumped I want that too. I'm all about choice. This is why I loved eve so much I could do what I want without other peoples preferred gameplay getting I'n my way. Lotro is like that also. I can level up, run dungeons, group up and raid until I'm blue I'n the face or I could solo, work on crafting and queue up for solo skirmishes if I want. Give me options, give me a choice don't push mechanics on me that I don't want to be apart of. For me that's how mmorpgs should be.
I would propose then that you must accept the fact that you aren't looking for pure freedom. That you are, in effect, actually taking advantage of "mechanics" while criticising them at the same time. It is game mechanics that keep you safe from other players. It is game mechanics that define a specified area for PvP and another for PVE. You are already living in a cage (so to speak) so why the diatribe against the very system you take advantage of?
Indeed, every single example you specified, your "options", exist as a game mechanic designed for its purpose.....which you take advantage of.
But a game mechanic designed for groups is too much to ask for?
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
@ntslkr where is the freedom of the other player I'n not being attacked I'n the first place? Who cares if he could avenge himself if all the guy wants to do is craft, gather and kill some mobs? You guys seem to forget these FFA games cater to more than just the asshat griefer. They have deep crafting systems, open worlds to explore & skill systems. The issue is these games cater to the players being attacked also. What freedom do they have?
I have mechanics to group I'n my game also. Difference is I'n mine the game doesn't require me to take part with no other alternative if it did then that sir wouldnt be freedom.
Forced grouping, forced pvp, forced pve progression, forced rulesets, forced this and forced that! How is that freedom? You want your freedom but constantly champion forced mechanics on others. I feel more restricted than ever...
Freedom is an illusion created by a good game. It doesn't serve any particular purpose in most titles, MMO or otherwise. In fact, games are defined by the reverse - by their rules. A horror game might not allow the player to run very fast to heighten a feeling of being confined or trapped. A PvE title will not allow players to attack one another. A racing game doesn't allow you to use an airplane. It's the fundamentals of game design to create a specific set of challenges or experiences defined by their limitations. It's only in an odd twist of fate that MMO's are often defined by their total amount of content which has been misconstrued as freedom.
To think of it in another light: When there's an invisible wall preventing a player from leaving the confines of a "map", it's because the designers didn't create the content outside the map, not because the player doesn't have enough "freedom", hence the misnomer. It doesn't help that it can crop up for completely different reasons.
In some cases, the word freedom is used to attack a mechanic a player hates, such as PvE. A PvP fan might evoke the word "freedom" to describe a PvP environment in contrast to PvE, rather than clearly expressing what they want. They might use it in hopes it will confuse less astute players into agreeing with them, or make some people on the fence change their opinions on the matter, but its broad definition provides no value to such a discussion.
In other cases the word is misused to promote features of a game a player loves. I've even heard it almost laughingly applied to perma-death mechanics a few times, which tends to remind me of super villains that often confuse freedom with death's release. Another example might be when its used to promote large open-worlds, likening a vast open area to explore as a type of freedom. This is probably the hardest to understand, most likely because of the expression "free to explore," but its an issue about content development and size, not freedom itself.
Lastly its often hurled as an insult against the very genre the MMO sets out to join. An example might be a class-based game that wants to encourage player interactivity by making each class strong in another's weakness. The entire point of the system would be to create such an environment where players are more effective when playing cooperatively but rather than simply avoid the game because they didn't like the genre, a player might instead try to use the word freedom as a rally cry to undermine the game's basis.
I think players often think MMO's are a complete genre in and of themselves, rather than being made up of many smaller subsets of genres. This leads to the mistaken belief that "everyone wants freedom!" or that "all MMO's are about ..." but any statement that attempts to bind such a broad category of games together is false on its face. MMO's are not about freedom, anymore than they are about chocolate bunnies, and are ultimately up to the designers to shape. It's not required that we enjoy every experience they create, but it is required we respect it. Insinuating that a design model threatens freedom, a word most Americans in particular have come to associate with a given right, respects nothing but sensationalism and rhetoric.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
Forced grouping, forced pvp, forced pve progression, forced rulesets, forced this and forced that! How is that freedom? You want your freedom but constantly champion forced mechanics on others. I feel more restricted than ever...
Freedom is an illusion created by a good game. It doesn't serve any particular purpose in most titles, MMO or otherwise. In fact, games are defined by the reverse - by their rules. A horror game might not allow the player to run very fast to heighten a feeling of being confined or trapped. A PvE title will not allow players to attack one another. A racing game doesn't allow you to use an airplane. It's the fundamentals of game design to create a specific set of challenges or experiences defined by their limitations. It's only in an odd twist of fate that MMO's are often defined by their total amount of content which has been misconstrued as freedom.
To think of it in another light: When there's an invisible wall preventing a player from leaving the confines of a "map", it's because the designers didn't create the content outside the map, not because the player doesn't have enough "freedom", hence the misnomer. It doesn't help that it can crop up for completely different reasons.
In some cases, the word freedom is used to attack a mechanic a player hates, such as PvE. A PvP fan might evoke the word "freedom" to describe a PvP environment in contrast to PvE, rather than clearly expressing what they want. They might use it in hopes it will confuse less astute players into agreeing with them, or make some people on the fence change their opinions on the matter, but its broad definition provides no value to such a discussion.
In other cases the word is misused to promote features of a game a player loves. I've even heard it almost laughingly applied to perma-death mechanics a few times, which tends to remind me of super villains that often confuse freedom with death's release. Another example might be when its used to promote large open-worlds, likening a vast open area to explore as a type of freedom. This is probably the hardest to understand, most likely because of the expression "free to explore," but its an issue about content development and size, not freedom itself.
Lastly its often hurled as an insult against the very genre the MMO sets out to join. An example might be a class-based game that wants to encourage player interactivity by making each class strong in another's weakness. The entire point of the system would be to create such an environment where players are more effective when playing cooperatively but rather than simply avoid the game because they didn't like the genre, a player might instead try to use the word freedom as a rally cry to undermine the game's basis.
I think players often think MMO's are a complete genre in and of themselves, rather than being made up of many smaller subsets of genres. This leads to the mistaken belief that "everyone wants freedom!" or that "all MMO's are about ..." but any statement that attempts to bind such a broad category of games together is false on its face. MMO's are not about freedom, anymore than they are about chocolate bunnies, and are ultimately up to the designers to shape. It's not required that we enjoy every experience they create, but it is required we respect it. Insinuating that a design model threatens freedom, a word most Americans in particular have come to associate with a given right, respects nothing but sensationalism and rhetoric.
You should post more often. Or is that limiting your freedom?
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Comments
I welcome restrictions that make a game more enjoyable.
I think it depensd on the game and what players want.
Forced pvp is not forced if everyone who has signed on to the game understand the rules and desire that rule set.
The forced grouping thing is a bit more murky for me. I think it's ok for games to have content that require groups and the particular dynamic that grouping brings.
However, I do think that games should have solo content.
One of the reasons I loved lineage 2 is that there were areas that required groups. However one could also solo to their heart's content. as far as particular drops that could be gotten in these grouping areas, they could be sold so that players who didn't group could still have access to them.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I actually feel "forced" to solo most of the time.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I hate the 'forced X' terminology because it seems to me it is meant by the majority to imply something in a negative context. A lot of things that people say are "forced" in these games I enjoy so to me it isn't forced.
When I think of being'forced' to do something that implies I have to take part in the action regardless what I want to do. Fact is I do want to do these things so for me on a personal level there is no forced mechanics.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
It's just a convoluted way of saying "If you don't play a game by my rules then you aren't for freedom. Your rules stink". It's a continuation of the 1960's memes full of institutionalized selfishness.
I'm sorry but Massive multi player on line does not mean forced grouping. I don't know where you pulled that from...Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
This makes no sense, its like putting someone in the middle of a minefield then telling them they have the freedom to move around as they please, going by that logic everyone in the world is free right now, as there all free to do whatever they want, even if it means getting shot.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
It's just a convoluted way of saying "If you don't play a game by my rules then you aren't for freedom. Your rules stink".
What the hell? The thread is about freedom equals choice. Alot of people wanting freedom I'n there games continually want forced features on players. I don't know how else to explain myself...Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
You forget your on the internet, everyone reads the title and assumes they knowq whats going on.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
You can't explain it because what you suggest is pretty contradictory.
In order to avoid the (so called) restriction of being in a group to exit certain town in the MMO you mentioned you have to place a restriction on the players that are a source of danger to you.
Basically you don't want freedom, you want the restrictions that are more convenient to you.
That may be a personal issue. Maybe you lack the social skills to connect with people on a certain level so you can group with others... As of right now every mmo that is solo friendly also gives you the option to group.Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
It is freedom. Terrorists hate our freedom.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Yeah that must be it, because any time I ask to group outside of endgame I get a typical response that it is faster and more efficient to solo. Who the hell wants to socialize in MMOs these days? It's all about getting to the top as fast as possible in order to start the gear treadmill.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Variety is the spice of life and if every game sticks to the same formula thigs would (did) get boring real fast.
Free for all pvp is a form freedom and it is a choice. Just because it may not allow you sanctuary from "ethugs" or it isn't the playstyle of your choice doesn't mean it is bad or forced. Restricting pvp to designated areas isn't pure freedom as you try to make it out to be. Just different game designs.
Some people choose to play games that offer team based gameplay which makes for more difficult encounters. Again, this is a choice.
Depends on your perspective I suppose. If you are an e-thug game number 2 gives you the freedom to gang rape helpless victims where as game one deprives you of your fun.
Trick is finding a balance between the many groups of players out there and creating a fun game of it all.
But steering away from PVP and back to 'forced' grouping. DAOC had "encouraged" grouping. It was quite possible for a person to solo the entire game, I did it myself on occasion, (although some healing type classes really couldn't) however there were strong rewards and game mechanics which made grouping the way to go.
Everything from downtime mechanics such as health, stamina, mana regeneration timers which could be reduced if you had a group of players with the right skills, to reduced downtime from actually taking less damage in a group than vs solo which just sped everything up.
Add in bonuses for camps/groups and game mechanics that made pugging very viable and it made for a very social game.
Didn't stop anyone from soloing, again, I soloed at least 2 alts to 50 w/o any help (but great patience) however I don't think any games today (not even DAOC) support a similar symbiosis between players of the community.
No, total freedom isn't always the desired goal of MMORPG's, at least in my mind.
I just want a choice. If I wanna pvp with friends I would like someplace to do it, if I feel like solo questing without the fear of getting jumped I want that too. I'm all about choice. This is why I loved eve so much I could do what I want without other peoples preferred gameplay getting I'n my way. Lotro is like that also. I can level up, run dungeons, group up and raid until I'm blue I'n the face or I could solo, work on crafting and queue up for solo skirmishes if I want. Give me options, give me a choice don't push mechanics on me that I don't want to be apart of. For me that's how mmorpgs should be.Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Keep in mind that all of your freedoms only exist as the result of restrictions to other players. Are you really talking about true freedom or your preference in game mechanics?
That may be a personal issue. Maybe you lack the social skills to connect with people on a certain level so you can group with others... As of right now every mmo that is solo friendly also gives you the option to group.Yeah that must be it, because any time I ask to group outside of endgame I get a typical response that it is faster and more efficient to solo. Who the hell wants to socialize in MMOs these days? It's all about getting to the top as fast as possible in order to start the gear treadmill.
I have no issues getting questing buddies I'n my current game. I'm generally liked And aren't a fuck tard when people mess up so I have a to. Of friends. I run dungeons, complete group quests and even lend a hand to newbies. I simply ask I'n a nice way and while we're grouped I'm friendly and social. Again it's probably a combination of a way your going about your social activities and bad luck I'n have anti-socials I'n that area when u ask.Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Minefield?
Well I suppose if you consider yourself a mine by all means....
The fallacy with the ethugs arguments is the denial that you possess all the freedoms and "abilities" (in as much noone starts the game at max level) and potential as the ethugs.
The ethugs use their freedom to attack other players (simplistic description but it works). But exactly what seperates the notional ethug from the notional player? Nothing. The player has the same freedom to attack someone as the ethug does...
Indeed. If the player decides to wonder out of the safe zone and actively hunt down/pursue the ethug? He/she can. Vigilantism is a viable concept in a FFA environment.
But all this is really academic. The point is that FFA, for all it's upsides and downsides, represents the least restrictive gameplay environment. No rules just decisions and consequences. The primary game play mechanic in place is your actions. Obviously this isn't for everyone.
Game play mechanics that restrict this to a greater or lessor degree, are just that, mechanics designed to restrict (or as I mentioned "guide") the players experience. The same principle applies to "forced grouping". Some things are designed with a group in mind. Is it forced if you can only feasibly do it with a group (In otherwords, nothing keeping you from entering the instance alone, it'd just be pretty futile)? Is it really a bad thing?
Zones. Instances. Lockout timers, etc etc. They are all just gameplay mechanics devised to guide a player's experience. Nothing makes one any more or less valid or effective than another.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
Keep in mind that all of your freedoms only exist as the result of restrictions to other players. Are you really talking about true freedom or your preference in game mechanics?
How is anything I said restricting anyone elses gameplay? They have a choice I'n how they want to play unless their choice is restricting and interupting other peoples way of playing... We call those people griefers and they only do that because they don't have the balls to mess with people that choose to be messed with.Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
I would propose then that you must accept the fact that you aren't looking for pure freedom. That you are, in effect, actually taking advantage of "mechanics" while criticising them at the same time. It is game mechanics that keep you safe from other players. It is game mechanics that define a specified area for PvP and another for PVE. You are already living in a cage (so to speak) so why the diatribe against the very system you take advantage of?
Indeed, every single example you specified, your "options", exist as a game mechanic designed for its purpose.....which you take advantage of.
But a game mechanic designed for groups is too much to ask for?
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Agree - any good game has it's boundaries set in place. Many of those games would be complete chaos without the rules that define them (or the goals).
Freedom is an illusion created by a good game. It doesn't serve any particular purpose in most titles, MMO or otherwise. In fact, games are defined by the reverse - by their rules. A horror game might not allow the player to run very fast to heighten a feeling of being confined or trapped. A PvE title will not allow players to attack one another. A racing game doesn't allow you to use an airplane. It's the fundamentals of game design to create a specific set of challenges or experiences defined by their limitations. It's only in an odd twist of fate that MMO's are often defined by their total amount of content which has been misconstrued as freedom.
To think of it in another light: When there's an invisible wall preventing a player from leaving the confines of a "map", it's because the designers didn't create the content outside the map, not because the player doesn't have enough "freedom", hence the misnomer. It doesn't help that it can crop up for completely different reasons.
In some cases, the word freedom is used to attack a mechanic a player hates, such as PvE. A PvP fan might evoke the word "freedom" to describe a PvP environment in contrast to PvE, rather than clearly expressing what they want. They might use it in hopes it will confuse less astute players into agreeing with them, or make some people on the fence change their opinions on the matter, but its broad definition provides no value to such a discussion.
In other cases the word is misused to promote features of a game a player loves. I've even heard it almost laughingly applied to perma-death mechanics a few times, which tends to remind me of super villains that often confuse freedom with death's release. Another example might be when its used to promote large open-worlds, likening a vast open area to explore as a type of freedom. This is probably the hardest to understand, most likely because of the expression "free to explore," but its an issue about content development and size, not freedom itself.
Lastly its often hurled as an insult against the very genre the MMO sets out to join. An example might be a class-based game that wants to encourage player interactivity by making each class strong in another's weakness. The entire point of the system would be to create such an environment where players are more effective when playing cooperatively but rather than simply avoid the game because they didn't like the genre, a player might instead try to use the word freedom as a rally cry to undermine the game's basis.
I think players often think MMO's are a complete genre in and of themselves, rather than being made up of many smaller subsets of genres. This leads to the mistaken belief that "everyone wants freedom!" or that "all MMO's are about ..." but any statement that attempts to bind such a broad category of games together is false on its face. MMO's are not about freedom, anymore than they are about chocolate bunnies, and are ultimately up to the designers to shape. It's not required that we enjoy every experience they create, but it is required we respect it. Insinuating that a design model threatens freedom, a word most Americans in particular have come to associate with a given right, respects nothing but sensationalism and rhetoric.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
You should post more often. Or is that limiting your freedom?