we ARE speaking in the context of RECREATION right? YES... IMO harder games are more enjoyable.
The last time I heard someone call another person "difficult" I don't think they meant they enjoyed said person's company. Difficult means difficult...nothing more. Here is the dictionary definition:
well, this is NOT a recreational activity(closer to procreational activity)... HOWEVER, some women will tell you retroactively that they enjoy it.... tho i dont see how.
that depends. I know plenty of competitive body builders who actually enjoy lifting weights and making their vains pop out to the point of almost giving themselves a stroke...
oh i donno, some silly thing called evolutionary instinct? humans are competitive by nature. might be the reason why we are on the top of the food chain at this moment in the earth's history. accomplishing difficult tasks carry its own intrensic reward. people LIKE to be challanged and overcoming near impossible tasks gives the ego stroke we all seek in our current evolutionary stage.
Next up...I agree that the difficulty of the task and the penalty for failing the task are mutually exclusive, after all...once you fail the task it is effectively over. You can try it again, but at that point it is a "new" task.
But...what about "super" tasks that contain other tasks?
For example the task "getting to max level" contains TONS of sub-tasks like "kill this monster," "complete this quest," etc. etc. All of these sub-tasks may be failed but repeated. If you fail the sub-task it directly impacts your progress on the main task (getting to max level) by taking away exp. This in turn makes the main task more difficult because you need to complete more sub-tasks to reach it after dying. So while the penalty for failing an individual task and its difficulty ARE mutually exclusive, the penalty for failing a sub-task CAN effect the difficulty of the larger task that contains it.
In short...if you want to argue about difficulty YOU HAVE TO DEFINE THE TASK. Without defining the task your argument is going to be nebulous...
actually i think the proper disucssion here should be defining the penalty that is involved. most mean harsh death penalty in form of repeating the same task to get back to where you were previously before you attempted the task. repeating a task doesnt add to the difficulty, it's more of an annoyance. making the encounter/task itself harder (more add's in mid battle, more random AE's, more death touchs, more random teleports, aggro wipes, etc... that makes the task HARDER, but not repetitve. repeating a pre-quest over and over just so you can get back to the same boss mob is boring because you've already cleared that quest and is simply a waste of time and annoying. there is no new strategy to develop, no tactics to discuss, simply go back in there and wipe out the trash mobs as fast as possible so you can get back to trying the main boss....
truth be told an encounter is really only HARD for the 1st 2 or 3 times you kill it. after that, it's pure farm mode and not really that enjoyable, you are simply there to pharm da phat lewtzorz.... most raid oriented guilds would actually start reducing the number of people they bring to the raid to make the encounter more challenging in order to keep the tanks and clerics awake....:D
I completely agree that difficulty CAN make a game more enjoyable and that it is a very important concept in game design. However,I was never arguing that a harder game cannot be more enjoyable, just that difficulty doesn't neccesarily make a game more enjoyable.
ET was a game for the Atari...it was very difficult, it is also regarded as the worst game ever made. It was difficult because you had no freaking idea what you were supposed to do. It was difficult because every time you walked through an area you fell into a stupid pit that took you forever to get out of.
Also, if difficulty invariably led to enjoyment in gaming, then a game could never be "too hard." There would be no need for difficulty levels in single player games because everyone would want to play on the hardest difficulty since it is by definition the most enjoyable.
Difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts. They are definitely related in gaming...but they are two different concepts. Something can be difficult can still suck...
"wastes player's time" is a statement of personal bias, it does not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being challenging.
whether future games discard a harsh death penalty because of its unpopularity is irrelevant to this theoretical discussion
Getting your corpse back naked, in the dark, vulnerable to anything does require time, does require skill, does require strategy.
Let's suspend how we know everyone feels for a few seconds in an attempt to gain a higher plane of understanding. Lets say that you personally, axehilt, loves harsh death penalties. You love them so much you get angry when a new mmorpg doesn't have them. Now you're going to tell me that you love something that's a waste of time? Please.... stop the madness.
I've got years to do this dance
That would be, like death penalties... YEARS of wasted time.
Let's assume that corpse running, or say, some other game's death penalty IS challenging, and is the greatest, most fun thing since virtual sliced bread.
Do you think that's a good design decision?
You want to talk about people who zerg to their deaths and don't give a crap whether they "win" or "lose", but now we're going to have a game in which the death penalty is challenging, enjoyable content? Really?
Forget that it's no longer a "death penalty", which is backward enough. We're now going to have people doing themselves in NOT just to get to a spawn point faster or some such... no, they're gonna do it to play the content that comes from dying. "What Dreams May Come Online".
It's one thing to want challenging content; it's another to be a masochist. Most people don't like corpse runs; that's why most people consider it a HARSH DEATH PENALTY. That's why the EQ devs MADE IT SO.
You're arguing in circles. It's NOT in the eye of the beholder. The POINT of a harsh death penalty is to punish; to discourage people from dying, as though people require more incentive than what most games give them. If a death penalty is an enjoyable part of gameplay, then IT'S NOT A PENALTY.
Lastly, I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks about the good ol' days of corpse runs is living in a rose colored bubble. It was tedious, a waste of time and a PITA, and IT WAS MEANT TO BE SUCH. It was no more "in the eye of the beholder" as is getting your snarklies crunched with a vise.
I completely agree that difficulty CAN make a game more enjoyable and that it is a very important concept in game design. However,I was never arguing that a harder game cannot be more enjoyable, just that difficulty doesn't neccesarily make a game more enjoyable.
ET was a game for the Atari...it was very difficult, it is also regarded as the worst game ever made. It was difficult because you had no freaking idea what you were supposed to do. It was difficult because every time you walked through an area you fell into a stupid pit that took you forever to get out of.
Also, if difficulty invariably led to enjoyment in gaming, then a game could never be "too hard." There would be no need for difficulty levels in single player games because everyone would want to play on the hardest difficulty since it is by definition the most enjoyable.
Difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts. They are definitely related in gaming...but they are two different concepts. Something can be difficult can still suck...
ET was a crappy game. It wasn't crappy because it was difficult. It was crappy because it was not fun by any meaning of the word. River Raid was difficult, too, but it was fun. If your point is that difficulty doesn't make a great game, I think it could go without saying.
But since you bring it up... that pit is the perfect example of what most harsh penalties add to a game. "You were supposed to avoid the pit and you failed; here's your penalty! Forever and ever trying to find your way out."
I agree that difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts, but if a game isn't at all difficult, people will get bored with it and leave. It it's too difficult, people will get frustrated and leave. A balance must be struck; again I think this goes without saying.
I completely agree that difficulty CAN make a game more enjoyable and that it is a very important concept in game design. However,I was never arguing that a harder game cannot be more enjoyable, just that difficulty doesn't neccesarily make a game more enjoyable.
ET was a game for the Atari...it was very difficult, it is also regarded as the worst game ever made. It was difficult because you had no freaking idea what you were supposed to do. It was difficult because every time you walked through an area you fell into a stupid pit that took you forever to get out of.
Also, if difficulty invariably led to enjoyment in gaming, then a game could never be "too hard." There would be no need for difficulty levels in single player games because everyone would want to play on the hardest difficulty since it is by definition the most enjoyable.
Difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts. They are definitely related in gaming...but they are two different concepts. Something can be difficult can still suck...
ET was a crappy game. It wasn't crappy because it was difficult. It was crappy because it was not fun by any meaning of the word. River Raid was difficult, too, but it was fun. If your point is that difficulty doesn't make a great game, I think it could go without saying.
But since you bring it up... that pit is the perfect example of what most harsh penalties add to a game. "You were supposed to avoid the pit and you failed; here's your penalty! Forever and ever trying to find your way out."
I agree that difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts, but if a game isn't at all difficult, people will get bored with it and leave. It it's too difficult, people will get frustrated and leave. A balance must be struck; again I think this goes without saying.
Oddly enough, I completely agree with you . The only point I was ever trying to make is that death penalties can (not do always) make games more difficult. This does not imply that they make them more fun.
I completely agree that difficulty CAN make a game more enjoyable and that it is a very important concept in game design. However,I was never arguing that a harder game cannot be more enjoyable, just that difficulty doesn't neccesarily make a game more enjoyable.
ET was a game for the Atari...it was very difficult, it is also regarded as the worst game ever made. It was difficult because you had no freaking idea what you were supposed to do. It was difficult because every time you walked through an area you fell into a stupid pit that took you forever to get out of.
Also, if difficulty invariably led to enjoyment in gaming, then a game could never be "too hard." There would be no need for difficulty levels in single player games because everyone would want to play on the hardest difficulty since it is by definition the most enjoyable.
Difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts. They are definitely related in gaming...but they are two different concepts. Something can be difficult can still suck...
ET was a crappy game. It wasn't crappy because it was difficult. It was crappy because it was not fun by any meaning of the word. River Raid was difficult, too, but it was fun. If your point is that difficulty doesn't make a great game, I think it could go without saying.
But since you bring it up... that pit is the perfect example of what most harsh penalties add to a game. "You were supposed to avoid the pit and you failed; here's your penalty! Forever and ever trying to find your way out."
I agree that difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts, but if a game isn't at all difficult, people will get bored with it and leave. It it's too difficult, people will get frustrated and leave. A balance must be struck; again I think this goes without saying.
Oddly enough, I completely agree with you . The only point I was ever trying to make is that death penalties can (not do always) make games more difficult. This does not imply that they make them more fun.
I completely agree that difficulty CAN make a game more enjoyable and that it is a very important concept in game design. However,I was never arguing that a harder game cannot be more enjoyable, just that difficulty doesn't neccesarily make a game more enjoyable.
ET was a game for the Atari...it was very difficult, it is also regarded as the worst game ever made. It was difficult because you had no freaking idea what you were supposed to do. It was difficult because every time you walked through an area you fell into a stupid pit that took you forever to get out of.
Also, if difficulty invariably led to enjoyment in gaming, then a game could never be "too hard." There would be no need for difficulty levels in single player games because everyone would want to play on the hardest difficulty since it is by definition the most enjoyable.
Difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts. They are definitely related in gaming...but they are two different concepts. Something can be difficult can still suck...
ET was a crappy game. It wasn't crappy because it was difficult. It was crappy because it was not fun by any meaning of the word. River Raid was difficult, too, but it was fun. If your point is that difficulty doesn't make a great game, I think it could go without saying.
But since you bring it up... that pit is the perfect example of what most harsh penalties add to a game. "You were supposed to avoid the pit and you failed; here's your penalty! Forever and ever trying to find your way out."
I agree that difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts, but if a game isn't at all difficult, people will get bored with it and leave. It it's too difficult, people will get frustrated and leave. A balance must be struck; again I think this goes without saying.
Oddly enough, I completely agree with you . The only point I was ever trying to make is that death penalties can (not do always) make games more difficult. This does not imply that they make them more fun.
"wastes player's time" is a statement of personal bias, it does not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being challenging.
whether future games discard a harsh death penalty because of its unpopularity is irrelevant to this theoretical discussion
Getting your corpse back naked, in the dark, vulnerable to anything does require time, does require skill, does require strategy.
Let's suspend how we know everyone feels for a few seconds in an attempt to gain a higher plane of understanding. Lets say that you personally, axehilt, loves harsh death penalties. You love them so much you get angry when a new mmorpg doesn't have them. Now you're going to tell me that you love something that's a waste of time? Please.... stop the madness.
I've got years to do this dance
That would be, like death penalties... YEARS of wasted time.
Let's assume that corpse running, or say, some other game's death penalty IS challenging, and is the greatest, most fun thing since virtual sliced bread.
Do you think that's a good design decision?
You want to talk about people who zerg to their deaths and don't give a crap whether they "win" or "lose", but now we're going to have a game in which the death penalty is challenging, enjoyable content? Really?
Forget that it's no longer a "death penalty", which is backward enough. We're now going to have people doing themselves in NOT just to get to a spawn point faster or some such... no, they're gonna do it to play the content that comes from dying. "What Dreams May Come Online".
It's one thing to want challenging content; it's another to be a masochist. Most people don't like corpse runs; that's why most people consider it a HARSH DEATH PENALTY. That's why the EQ devs MADE IT SO.
You're arguing in circles. It's NOT in the eye of the beholder. The POINT of a harsh death penalty is to punish; to discourage people from dying, as though people require more incentive than what most games give them. If a death penalty is an enjoyable part of gameplay, then IT'S NOT A PENALTY.
Lastly, I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks about the good ol' days of corpse runs is living in a rose colored bubble. It was tedious, a waste of time and a PITA, and IT WAS MEANT TO BE SUCH. It was no more "in the eye of the beholder" as is getting your snarklies crunched with a vise.
Tedious, a waste of time, and a PITA are all statements of personal bias. They do not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being a challenge. The argument isn't is it good for the game. The argument isn't what do most people like. The argument is, is it a challenge. What you should be able to say is that it is a challenge, it simply is a challenge I don't want any part of.
EQ1 released a set of new progression servers recently. It did not have corpse runs and there were people who were not happy with that decision and voiced their displeasure. You want to pretend that these people don't exist because you don't like what they like but they do exist.
I know I'm a little late to the party but please see my signature for my opinion on harsh death. These games nowadays are weak. If you don't succeed, you just keep trying again and again. Anyone can do that. With harsh death comes serious consequences for failure and serious rewards for success. These opinions of mine are only geared towards the MMORPG genre. You can't use Super Mario as an example of a game to use harsh death - that defeats the whole point of the game.
Serious death penalties makes every close call an adrenaline rush, and every minor achievement a major victory. This alternative rule-set should be in all MMORPGs.
"wastes player's time" is a statement of personal bias, it does not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being challenging.
whether future games discard a harsh death penalty because of its unpopularity is irrelevant to this theoretical discussion
Getting your corpse back naked, in the dark, vulnerable to anything does require time, does require skill, does require strategy.
Let's suspend how we know everyone feels for a few seconds in an attempt to gain a higher plane of understanding. Lets say that you personally, axehilt, loves harsh death penalties. You love them so much you get angry when a new mmorpg doesn't have them. Now you're going to tell me that you love something that's a waste of time? Please.... stop the madness.
I've got years to do this dance
That would be, like death penalties... YEARS of wasted time.
Let's assume that corpse running, or say, some other game's death penalty IS challenging, and is the greatest, most fun thing since virtual sliced bread.
Do you think that's a good design decision?
You want to talk about people who zerg to their deaths and don't give a crap whether they "win" or "lose", but now we're going to have a game in which the death penalty is challenging, enjoyable content? Really?
Forget that it's no longer a "death penalty", which is backward enough. We're now going to have people doing themselves in NOT just to get to a spawn point faster or some such... no, they're gonna do it to play the content that comes from dying. "What Dreams May Come Online".
It's one thing to want challenging content; it's another to be a masochist. Most people don't like corpse runs; that's why most people consider it a HARSH DEATH PENALTY. That's why the EQ devs MADE IT SO.
You're arguing in circles. It's NOT in the eye of the beholder. The POINT of a harsh death penalty is to punish; to discourage people from dying, as though people require more incentive than what most games give them. If a death penalty is an enjoyable part of gameplay, then IT'S NOT A PENALTY.
Lastly, I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks about the good ol' days of corpse runs is living in a rose colored bubble. It was tedious, a waste of time and a PITA, and IT WAS MEANT TO BE SUCH. It was no more "in the eye of the beholder" as is getting your snarklies crunched with a vise.
I agree with tha last two paragraphs even as a supporter of harsh death penalties. Leaving aside for a moment whether or not such a thing is a challenge or adds difficulty; A death penaly as such is certainly not meant to be enjoyed. That's eaxctly the reason it is a thing to be avoided. Even feared.
Again, to me it's an atmosphere thing. Things get tense and you have to pay attention and not do stupid things. That doesn't mean that I like what happens when I die, only that I like the tenseness that results from the possibility of such a penalty actually being invoked.
If something is more challenging, it's harder. If something is more difficult, it's more challenging. The three terms are synonyms.
Whether you use the term hard, challenge, or difficult, none of these describes what happens when Harsh DP is added to a game. As restated many times in this thread, no additional strategies are required to beat the majority of types of Harsh DPs. No additional skill is needed, just more time.
Spin it whatever way you want, but the fact remains that harsh DP wastes players' time in ways that games prior to MMORPGs didn't even consider (and games after MMORPGs certainly won't, due to the concept's inherent unpopularity.)
sigh... perfect example of the post WoW generation gamer:D i suppose you think beating a game in god mode over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again is HARD!!!!! personally i call that boring
Meaningless trolling from someone who's clearly not read any of my posts in this thread. (And for what it's worth I'm a C64/NES-generation gamer, which is why I prefer logical death penalties and not excessively punishing ones. It's only the kids who started on UO/EQ who seem to lack comprehension of what a good death penalty is.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If something is more challenging, it's harder. If something is more difficult, it's more challenging. The three terms are synonyms.
Whether you use the term hard, challenge, or difficult, none of these describes what happens when Harsh DP is added to a game. As restated many times in this thread, no additional strategies are required to beat the majority of types of Harsh DPs. No additional skill is needed, just more time.
Spin it whatever way you want, but the fact remains that harsh DP wastes players' time in ways that games prior to MMORPGs didn't even consider (and games after MMORPGs certainly won't, due to the concept's inherent unpopularity.)
sigh... perfect example of the post WoW generation gamer:D i suppose you think beating a game in god mode over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again is HARD!!!!! personally i call that boring
Meaningless trolling from someone who's clearly not read any of my posts in this thread. (And for what it's worth I'm a C64/NES-generation gamer, which is why I prefer logical death penalties and not excessively punishing ones. It's only the kids who started on UO/EQ who seem to lack comprehension of what a good death penalty is.)
I don't think anyone who started in UO or EQ can be called a kid...unfortunately .
Anyway...it's all a matter of preference. Some people like harsher death penalties because they feel it makes the game more challenging. If death penalties were universally hated except by people who "lack comprehension" then games like Eve or Darkfall would have no subscribers.
Tedious, a waste of time, and a PITA are all statements of personal bias. They do not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being a challenge. The argument isn't is it good for the game. The argument isn't what do most people like. The argument is, is it a challenge. What you should be able to say is that it is a challenge, it simply is a challenge I don't want any part of.
EQ1 released a set of new progression servers recently. It did not have corpse runs and there were people who were not happy with that decision and voiced their displeasure. You want to pretend that these people don't exist because you don't like what they like but they do exist.
Fine. I'll play your game.
Again, if it's not one or all of those three things, or something worse, then it's NOT a death PENALTY.
If, say, corpse runs are not a punishment to you, then it is not a penalty; and for you it doesn't fit into any of the rationale regarding harsh death penalties. They are meant to deter people from experiencing them. The argument from most folks on your side of the argument, is that this "deterrence" is necessary to keep people playing to the best of their ability.
But if YOU are right, you blow their argument. It's not a deterrent at all. It's just an offroad to your overall enjoyment of the game, much like crafting or exploring or minigames might be to someone else.
Tedious, a waste of time, and a PITA are all statements of personal bias. They do not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being a challenge. The argument isn't is it good for the game. The argument isn't what do most people like. The argument is, is it a challenge. What you should be able to say is that it is a challenge, it simply is a challenge I don't want any part of.
EQ1 released a set of new progression servers recently. It did not have corpse runs and there were people who were not happy with that decision and voiced their displeasure. You want to pretend that these people don't exist because you don't like what they like but they do exist.
Fine. I'll play your game.
Again, if it's not one or all of those three things, or something worse, then it's NOT a death PENALTY.
If, say, corpse runs are not a punishment to you, then it is not a penalty; and for you it doesn't fit into any of the rationale regarding harsh death penalties. They are meant to deter people from experiencing them. The argument from most folks on your side of the argument, is that this "deterrence" is necessary to keep people playing to the best of their ability.
But if YOU are right, you blow their argument. It's not a deterrent at all. It's just an offroad to your overall enjoyment of the game, much like crafting or exploring or minigames might be to someone else.
No heh, it isn't that they like dying. It's that they enjoy the challenge they have to deal with once they die. They enjoy how the entire game takes shape with this extra gameplay mechanic.
I am not coordinating with anyone's argument other than my own btw
Tedious, a waste of time, and a PITA are all statements of personal bias. They do not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being a challenge. The argument isn't is it good for the game. The argument isn't what do most people like. The argument is, is it a challenge. What you should be able to say is that it is a challenge, it simply is a challenge I don't want any part of.
EQ1 released a set of new progression servers recently. It did not have corpse runs and there were people who were not happy with that decision and voiced their displeasure. You want to pretend that these people don't exist because you don't like what they like but they do exist.
Fine. I'll play your game.
Again, if it's not one or all of those three things, or something worse, then it's NOT a death PENALTY.
If, say, corpse runs are not a punishment to you, then it is not a penalty; and for you it doesn't fit into any of the rationale regarding harsh death penalties. They are meant to deter people from experiencing them. The argument from most folks on your side of the argument, is that this "deterrence" is necessary to keep people playing to the best of their ability.
But if YOU are right, you blow their argument. It's not a deterrent at all. It's just an offroad to your overall enjoyment of the game, much like crafting or exploring or minigames might be to someone else.
Very nice and logical argument !
I think what UOLover meant though was that no one actually looks forward to experiencing the death penalty, but sometimes the adventures you have recovering from it can be (but are not always) interesting...usually only in retrospect .
I can remember in UO being TERRIFIED after I died that some opportunistic player would drop by and take all my stuff. It was definitely a rush while I was running as fast as I could back to my corpse, and it was an awesome feeling if I got my stuff back. But I would definitely NEVER die on purpose...the rush is in the fear of loss.
Difficulty = how much skill is required to avoid failure.
Penalty = what happens if you fail.
Therefore death penalty doesn't make games harder. It just makes them more painful or inconvenient.
Exactly.
And the satisfaction (and sometimes elation) of avoiding that pain and inconvieniece is what makes the death penalty so valuable in games such as these.
(although I do get that isnt what your getting at)
The level of challange is an entirely different thing from the penalty for failing that challenge though, I have no idea why people think differently. It is entirely possible to have an easy game with a severe penalty and a hard game with zero penalty. I always assumed that was a given.
The level of challange is an entirely different thing from the penalty for failing that challenge though, I have no idea why people think differently. It is entirely possible to have an easy game with a severe penalty and a hard game with zero penalty. I always assumed that was a given.
Yeah, I'm a little weirded out that some people think a game WITHOUT a heavy death penalty (Or even 'a death penalty') is automatically not challenging.
Obviously people who think chess is easy mode and only for carebears with no skills. :T
I don't think anyone who started in UO or EQ can be called a kid...unfortunately .
Anyway...it's all a matter of preference. Some people like harsher death penalties because they feel it makes the game more challenging. If death penalties were universally hated except by people who "lack comprehension" then games like Eve or Darkfall would have no subscribers.
Not "universal hatred", but let's face it: games like EVE, Darkfall, and Demon's Souls are a tiny drop in the sea of the game industry.
"Overwhelming majority" is almost an insufficient term for describing how many players prefer sane death penalty.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think anyone who started in UO or EQ can be called a kid...unfortunately .
Anyway...it's all a matter of preference. Some people like harsher death penalties because they feel it makes the game more challenging. If death penalties were universally hated except by people who "lack comprehension" then games like Eve or Darkfall would have no subscribers.
Not "universal hatred", but let's face it: games like EVE, Darkfall, and Demon's Souls are a tiny drop in the sea of the game industry.
"Overwhelming majority" is almost an insufficient term for describing how many players prefer sane death penalty.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with you that a majority of players do not like a harsh death penalty.
But if YOU are right, you blow their argument. It's not a deterrent at all. It's just an offroad to your overall enjoyment of the game, much like crafting or exploring or minigames might be to someone else.
Very nice and logical argument !
I think what UOLover meant though was that no one actually looks forward to experiencing the death penalty, but sometimes the adventures you have recovering from it can be (but are not always) interesting...usually only in retrospect .
I can remember in UO being TERRIFIED after I died that some opportunistic player would drop by and take all my stuff. It was definitely a rush while I was running as fast as I could back to my corpse, and it was an awesome feeling if I got my stuff back. But I would definitely NEVER die on purpose...the rush is in the fear of loss.
Well, if that's what UOL means, then the argument that corpse running is a tedious and annoying form of gameplay still stands undisputed. Like you said, good/funny/amusing things CAN happen in the process, but you can also meet the love of your life in a 10 car pile up. That doesn't make 10 car pile ups a positive thing in the game of life.
Maybe it's one of the reasons(other than the massive inconvenience) that DP's in the flavor of corpse running(largely a legacy holdover from most MUD's) have evolved to indisputably negative, but much less time consuming options like Rez sickness and item repair.
But if YOU are right, you blow their argument. It's not a deterrent at all. It's just an offroad to your overall enjoyment of the game, much like crafting or exploring or minigames might be to someone else.
Very nice and logical argument !
I think what UOLover meant though was that no one actually looks forward to experiencing the death penalty, but sometimes the adventures you have recovering from it can be (but are not always) interesting...usually only in retrospect .
I can remember in UO being TERRIFIED after I died that some opportunistic player would drop by and take all my stuff. It was definitely a rush while I was running as fast as I could back to my corpse, and it was an awesome feeling if I got my stuff back. But I would definitely NEVER die on purpose...the rush is in the fear of loss.
Well, if that's what UOL means, then the argument that corpse running is a tedious and annoying form of gameplay still stands undisputed. Like you said, good/funny/amusing things CAN happen in the process, but you can also meet the love of your life in a 10 car pile up. That doesn't make 10 car pile ups a positive thing in the game of life.
Maybe it's one of the reasons(other than the massive inconvenience) that DP's in the flavor of corpse running(largely a legacy holdover from most MUD's) to indisputably negative, but much less time consuming options like Rez sickness and item repair.
Well, I don't think that one all-ecompassing view really works here. Some corpse runs ARE tedious. Others; a fun challenge. Just like some quests are great and others suck. It's all about situations. There is no defining it one way or the other IMO.
Not "universal hatred", but let's face it: games like EVE, Darkfall, and Demon's Souls are a tiny drop in the sea of the game industry.
"Overwhelming majority" is almost an insufficient term for describing how many players prefer sane death penalty.
EVE has been the number two P2P in the west for how long now? WoW is an anomaly and we should all know that by now. But, how come none of the light DP mmos haven't overtaken a game with a heavy DP that doesn't even have avatars you can really use yet?
I don't think people are as allergic to a heavier DP as you would like to believe. We just don't have enough examples out there for gamers to experience because the current crop of game developers seem to have an incredible lack of creativity and a big desire to coast all the way down easy street.
Once we get devs that start making games they want to play again, we will finally be able to get out this horrible period of stagnation.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think a death penalty can add to the game experience, but it can also detract from it. The game definitely has to be designed in a certain way depending on the death penalty and can't just be thrown in as an after thought.
In a game like UO there was the risk of losing your equipment if you got in too deep and or couldn't get back quickly enough. But if you did lose your gear it wasn't the end of the world as UO was more character skill driven than equipment driven. If the game had been more about the various items you accumulated then losing all your equipment would be too harsh and frustrating to risk ever diving into a dangerous situation. At that point it becomes a deterrent to gameplay rather than enhancing the gameplay with the element of risk. The risk vs reward just wouldn't balance out.
Everquest also had a harsh death penalty. While you didn't really have the loss of equipment (unless things went horribly wrong and you couldn't find a necromancer) hanging over your head it was entirely possible early on in the game to end up in a death loop where you would lose massive amounts of experience and maybe even lose your level. It definitely added to the level of concentration people put forth in the encounters, because they really REALLY didn't want to die.
Then at the other end of the spectrum you have WoW and Rift, where the only setback really is time. And you will likely end up dying many, many more times than you ever would in UO or Everquest. I don't think the anyone could make a legitimate argument that those 2 games are more challenging. So why the difference ? People will approach the game and situations much differently when there is an element of risk involved other than just the time lost running back. And the games themselved are designed and filled with crappy/cheap ways to kill people repeatedly.
Really I wish a game would release with a happy medium between punishing people for stupid mistakes (Yes, punish. If there is one thing I am truly tired of in recent MMOs is that you end up with max level players that are horrible because they can level while dying repeatedly and never learn how to play and just mooch off the rest of the group. And then you end up with them recruiting with your guild, thrown into groups or PvP with them etc... You shouldn't have to learn to play the game when you've reached the "end". The process of getting there should be enough.) while not being overly harsh if you simply get stuck in a bad situation. Such as a decaying death penalty instead of a increased time between rezzing. First time you die is the worst, then it halves every time after that up to like 5 deaths and have it reset after 4 hours or so. This would give you the incentive to avoid doing something stupid/foolhardy yet not be totally discouraging for trying something risky.
Not "universal hatred", but let's face it: games like EVE, Darkfall, and Demon's Souls are a tiny drop in the sea of the game industry.
"Overwhelming majority" is almost an insufficient term for describing how many players prefer sane death penalty.
EVE has been the number two P2P in the west for how long now? WoW is an anomaly and we should all know that by now. But, how come none of the light DP mmos haven't overtaken a game with a heavy DP that doesn't even have avatars you can really use yet?
I don't think people are as allergic to a heavier DP as you would like to believe. We just don't have enough examples out there for gamers to experience because the current crop of game developers seem to have an incredible lack of creativity and a big desire to coast all the way down easy street.
Once we get devs that start making games they want to play again, we will finally be able to get out this horrible period of stagnation.
You can't compare Eve to other true MMO's... Eve is a glorified spreadsheet with an avatar. Sure, the game may be fun for some people, but it is simply not in the same realm as WoW, Rift, AoC, etc. They are completely different types of games.
>>Blizzard made "forming groups" less frustrating, but somehow that translate to people, that Blizzard is dumbing down the gameplay >>and making it easier.
>>Blizzard lowers the raid format from 40 man, down to 25 and 10 man groups, in order to make group formations less frustrating, >>but again, players some how translate that to Blizzard dumbing down the game and making it easier.
Uhm you seemed to have missed the big part where made the bosses, elite creatures etc easier to take on. Some how you have mistaken the looking for groups tool as dumbing down. When most of us don't mind that tool and actually think the tool is a good thing. It was the lowering of difficulty of the foes you faced that reduced the sense of reward one got when one beat the boss or creatures etc. MMOEXPOSED I've read a few posts by you and you often use faulty logic for your debate stances, or twisted logic.
Not "universal hatred", but let's face it: games like EVE, Darkfall, and Demon's Souls are a tiny drop in the sea of the game industry.
"Overwhelming majority" is almost an insufficient term for describing how many players prefer sane death penalty.
EVE has been the number two P2P in the west for how long now? WoW is an anomaly and we should all know that by now. But, how come none of the light DP mmos haven't overtaken a game with a heavy DP that doesn't even have avatars you can really use yet?
I don't think people are as allergic to a heavier DP as you would like to believe. We just don't have enough examples out there for gamers to experience because the current crop of game developers seem to have an incredible lack of creativity and a big desire to coast all the way down easy street.
Once we get devs that start making games they want to play again, we will finally be able to get out this horrible period of stagnation.
You can't compare Eve to other true MMO's...Sure I can. Even though it's unique, it's still an mmorpg. Eve is a glorified spreadsheet with an avatar. This was anything but unique Sure, the game may be fun for some people, but it is simply not in the same realm as WoW, Rift, AoC, etc. The realm of "ancient and done to death"? Right, Rift is newly released, but newness and polish do not change the fact that it falls into the same category of "ancient and done to death". They are completely different types of games. That was sort of the point Games that don't follow through with the light DP that is so common, and instead go with something harsher, can indeed be successful.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Comments
I completely agree that difficulty CAN make a game more enjoyable and that it is a very important concept in game design. However,I was never arguing that a harder game cannot be more enjoyable, just that difficulty doesn't neccesarily make a game more enjoyable.
ET was a game for the Atari...it was very difficult, it is also regarded as the worst game ever made. It was difficult because you had no freaking idea what you were supposed to do. It was difficult because every time you walked through an area you fell into a stupid pit that took you forever to get out of.
Also, if difficulty invariably led to enjoyment in gaming, then a game could never be "too hard." There would be no need for difficulty levels in single player games because everyone would want to play on the hardest difficulty since it is by definition the most enjoyable.
Difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts. They are definitely related in gaming...but they are two different concepts. Something can be difficult can still suck...
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
That would be, like death penalties... YEARS of wasted time.
Let's assume that corpse running, or say, some other game's death penalty IS challenging, and is the greatest, most fun thing since virtual sliced bread.
Do you think that's a good design decision?
You want to talk about people who zerg to their deaths and don't give a crap whether they "win" or "lose", but now we're going to have a game in which the death penalty is challenging, enjoyable content? Really?
Forget that it's no longer a "death penalty", which is backward enough. We're now going to have people doing themselves in NOT just to get to a spawn point faster or some such... no, they're gonna do it to play the content that comes from dying. "What Dreams May Come Online".
It's one thing to want challenging content; it's another to be a masochist. Most people don't like corpse runs; that's why most people consider it a HARSH DEATH PENALTY. That's why the EQ devs MADE IT SO.
You're arguing in circles. It's NOT in the eye of the beholder. The POINT of a harsh death penalty is to punish; to discourage people from dying, as though people require more incentive than what most games give them. If a death penalty is an enjoyable part of gameplay, then IT'S NOT A PENALTY.
Lastly, I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks about the good ol' days of corpse runs is living in a rose colored bubble. It was tedious, a waste of time and a PITA, and IT WAS MEANT TO BE SUCH. It was no more "in the eye of the beholder" as is getting your snarklies crunched with a vise.
ET was a crappy game. It wasn't crappy because it was difficult. It was crappy because it was not fun by any meaning of the word. River Raid was difficult, too, but it was fun. If your point is that difficulty doesn't make a great game, I think it could go without saying.
But since you bring it up... that pit is the perfect example of what most harsh penalties add to a game. "You were supposed to avoid the pit and you failed; here's your penalty! Forever and ever trying to find your way out."
I agree that difficulty and enjoyability are two different concepts, but if a game isn't at all difficult, people will get bored with it and leave. It it's too difficult, people will get frustrated and leave. A balance must be struck; again I think this goes without saying.
Oddly enough, I completely agree with you
. The only point I was ever trying to make is that death penalties can (not do always) make games more difficult. This does not imply that they make them more fun.
Some people like death penalties, others don't.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Agreeing with me agreeing with you is odd?
LOL, after a week of this thread...yes
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Tedious, a waste of time, and a PITA are all statements of personal bias. They do not invalidate the concept of a harsh death penalty being a challenge. The argument isn't is it good for the game. The argument isn't what do most people like. The argument is, is it a challenge. What you should be able to say is that it is a challenge, it simply is a challenge I don't want any part of.
EQ1 released a set of new progression servers recently. It did not have corpse runs and there were people who were not happy with that decision and voiced their displeasure. You want to pretend that these people don't exist because you don't like what they like but they do exist.
@ OP
I know I'm a little late to the party but please see my signature for my opinion on harsh death. These games nowadays are weak. If you don't succeed, you just keep trying again and again. Anyone can do that. With harsh death comes serious consequences for failure and serious rewards for success. These opinions of mine are only geared towards the MMORPG genre. You can't use Super Mario as an example of a game to use harsh death - that defeats the whole point of the game.
Serious death penalties makes every close call an adrenaline rush, and every minor achievement a major victory. This alternative rule-set should be in all MMORPGs.
I agree with tha last two paragraphs even as a supporter of harsh death penalties. Leaving aside for a moment whether or not such a thing is a challenge or adds difficulty; A death penaly as such is certainly not meant to be enjoyed. That's eaxctly the reason it is a thing to be avoided. Even feared.
Again, to me it's an atmosphere thing. Things get tense and you have to pay attention and not do stupid things. That doesn't mean that I like what happens when I die, only that I like the tenseness that results from the possibility of such a penalty actually being invoked.
A penalty enjoyed isn't much of a penalty.
Meaningless trolling from someone who's clearly not read any of my posts in this thread. (And for what it's worth I'm a C64/NES-generation gamer, which is why I prefer logical death penalties and not excessively punishing ones. It's only the kids who started on UO/EQ who seem to lack comprehension of what a good death penalty is.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think anyone who started in UO or EQ can be called a kid...unfortunately
.
Anyway...it's all a matter of preference. Some people like harsher death penalties because they feel it makes the game more challenging. If death penalties were universally hated except by people who "lack comprehension" then games like Eve or Darkfall would have no subscribers.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Fine. I'll play your game.
Again, if it's not one or all of those three things, or something worse, then it's NOT a death PENALTY.
If, say, corpse runs are not a punishment to you, then it is not a penalty; and for you it doesn't fit into any of the rationale regarding harsh death penalties. They are meant to deter people from experiencing them. The argument from most folks on your side of the argument, is that this "deterrence" is necessary to keep people playing to the best of their ability.
But if YOU are right, you blow their argument. It's not a deterrent at all. It's just an offroad to your overall enjoyment of the game, much like crafting or exploring or minigames might be to someone else.
No heh, it isn't that they like dying. It's that they enjoy the challenge they have to deal with once they die. They enjoy how the entire game takes shape with this extra gameplay mechanic.
I am not coordinating with anyone's argument other than my own btw
Very nice and logical argument
!
I think what UOLover meant though was that no one actually looks forward to experiencing the death penalty, but sometimes the adventures you have recovering from it can be (but are not always) interesting...usually only in retrospect
.
I can remember in UO being TERRIFIED after I died that some opportunistic player would drop by and take all my stuff. It was definitely a rush while I was running as fast as I could back to my corpse, and it was an awesome feeling if I got my stuff back. But I would definitely NEVER die on purpose...the rush is in the fear of loss.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Exactly.
And the satisfaction (and sometimes elation) of avoiding that pain and inconvieniece is what makes the death penalty so valuable in games such as these.
(although I do get that isnt what your getting at)
The level of challange is an entirely different thing from the penalty for failing that challenge though, I have no idea why people think differently. It is entirely possible to have an easy game with a severe penalty and a hard game with zero penalty. I always assumed that was a given.
Yeah, I'm a little weirded out that some people think a game WITHOUT a heavy death penalty (Or even 'a death penalty') is automatically not challenging.
Obviously people who think chess is easy mode and only for carebears with no skills. :T
Not "universal hatred", but let's face it: games like EVE, Darkfall, and Demon's Souls are a tiny drop in the sea of the game industry.
"Overwhelming majority" is almost an insufficient term for describing how many players prefer sane death penalty.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't see anyone disagreeing with you that a majority of players do not like a harsh death penalty.
Well, if that's what UOL means, then the argument that corpse running is a tedious and annoying form of gameplay still stands undisputed. Like you said, good/funny/amusing things CAN happen in the process, but you can also meet the love of your life in a 10 car pile up. That doesn't make 10 car pile ups a positive thing in the game of life.
Maybe it's one of the reasons(other than the massive inconvenience) that DP's in the flavor of corpse running(largely a legacy holdover from most MUD's) have evolved to indisputably negative, but much less time consuming options like Rez sickness and item repair.
Edited the last 'graph to make more sense.
Well, I don't think that one all-ecompassing view really works here. Some corpse runs ARE tedious. Others; a fun challenge. Just like some quests are great and others suck. It's all about situations. There is no defining it one way or the other IMO.
EVE has been the number two P2P in the west for how long now? WoW is an anomaly and we should all know that by now. But, how come none of the light DP mmos haven't overtaken a game with a heavy DP that doesn't even have avatars you can really use yet?
I don't think people are as allergic to a heavier DP as you would like to believe. We just don't have enough examples out there for gamers to experience because the current crop of game developers seem to have an incredible lack of creativity and a big desire to coast all the way down easy street.
Once we get devs that start making games they want to play again, we will finally be able to get out this horrible period of stagnation.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think a death penalty can add to the game experience, but it can also detract from it. The game definitely has to be designed in a certain way depending on the death penalty and can't just be thrown in as an after thought.
In a game like UO there was the risk of losing your equipment if you got in too deep and or couldn't get back quickly enough. But if you did lose your gear it wasn't the end of the world as UO was more character skill driven than equipment driven. If the game had been more about the various items you accumulated then losing all your equipment would be too harsh and frustrating to risk ever diving into a dangerous situation. At that point it becomes a deterrent to gameplay rather than enhancing the gameplay with the element of risk. The risk vs reward just wouldn't balance out.
Everquest also had a harsh death penalty. While you didn't really have the loss of equipment (unless things went horribly wrong and you couldn't find a necromancer) hanging over your head it was entirely possible early on in the game to end up in a death loop where you would lose massive amounts of experience and maybe even lose your level. It definitely added to the level of concentration people put forth in the encounters, because they really REALLY didn't want to die.
Then at the other end of the spectrum you have WoW and Rift, where the only setback really is time. And you will likely end up dying many, many more times than you ever would in UO or Everquest. I don't think the anyone could make a legitimate argument that those 2 games are more challenging. So why the difference ? People will approach the game and situations much differently when there is an element of risk involved other than just the time lost running back. And the games themselved are designed and filled with crappy/cheap ways to kill people repeatedly.
Really I wish a game would release with a happy medium between punishing people for stupid mistakes (Yes, punish. If there is one thing I am truly tired of in recent MMOs is that you end up with max level players that are horrible because they can level while dying repeatedly and never learn how to play and just mooch off the rest of the group. And then you end up with them recruiting with your guild, thrown into groups or PvP with them etc... You shouldn't have to learn to play the game when you've reached the "end". The process of getting there should be enough.) while not being overly harsh if you simply get stuck in a bad situation. Such as a decaying death penalty instead of a increased time between rezzing. First time you die is the worst, then it halves every time after that up to like 5 deaths and have it reset after 4 hours or so. This would give you the incentive to avoid doing something stupid/foolhardy yet not be totally discouraging for trying something risky.
You can't compare Eve to other true MMO's... Eve is a glorified spreadsheet with an avatar. Sure, the game may be fun for some people, but it is simply not in the same realm as WoW, Rift, AoC, etc. They are completely different types of games.
>>lets take a look at WoW for example.
>>Blizzard made "forming groups" less frustrating, but somehow that translate to people, that Blizzard is dumbing down the gameplay >>and making it easier.
>>Blizzard lowers the raid format from 40 man, down to 25 and 10 man groups, in order to make group formations less frustrating, >>but again, players some how translate that to Blizzard dumbing down the game and making it easier.
Uhm you seemed to have missed the big part where made the bosses, elite creatures etc easier to take on. Some how you have mistaken the looking for groups tool as dumbing down. When most of us don't mind that tool and actually think the tool is a good thing. It was the lowering of difficulty of the foes you faced that reduced the sense of reward one got when one beat the boss or creatures etc. MMOEXPOSED I've read a few posts by you and you often use faulty logic for your debate stances, or twisted logic.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb