Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Satcho Once you have something "tangible", put it up on http://www.kickstarter.com/ -- that'll get you funding.
Yea right. That's just shuffling money around. You still need the big 3: Audience, Publisher, Studio.
You probably could skip the publisher unless you are looking to do physical box product.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A lot of the details that need to be filled in don't become obvious until you have a game working with a lot of features already implemented. Once you have the game sitting there, it's completely obvious that you have some major components that are completely missing, but you didn't realize it while writing a document.
There are also a lot of things that on paper, look like they should work flawlessly. But once you implement them, it's obvious that they're completely broken. It's unlikely that you'll ever detect that while the ideas are just on paper, but they could force enormous redesigns of large swaths of content once you try to implement them.
Quizzical has some great advice there, Mike.
You've got everything written out, so now it's time to start trying out what you've created. GameMaker is a great free tool for testing out ideas. You could even raid your board games for dice and pieces to start testing it out that way. Have other people playtest the various systems in your game. See what they are doing and find out WHY they are doing it. How you may perceive the mechanics being used could be radically different from how others actually use them.
You'll find you have a ton of refining to do at that level. After that, it's getting the various elements to work together in the same enviroment. Test, change, refine.
Yeah, understood. I have 15 years of data programming experience, in which I always believed in a more procedural base approach of building projects unlike todays more object orientated rail based systems. It leads to a modular approach in development that provides a very stable backbone. Things take a bit longer to develop this way but are so much worth it and mistakes don't happen and you never code yourself into a corner. (things are done, tested and completed, and moved to the next problem) So that has helped tons with the initial design of the game.
And no I have not everthing written out yet Its a major task with tons yet to do, but i have hundreds of hours of theory and design completed, as well as lore and other stuff...
Wait... 15 years as a data programmer. So you're an adult?
A lot of the details that need to be filled in don't become obvious until you have a game working with a lot of features already implemented. Once you have the game sitting there, it's completely obvious that you have some major components that are completely missing, but you didn't realize it while writing a document.
There are also a lot of things that on paper, look like they should work flawlessly. But once you implement them, it's obvious that they're completely broken. It's unlikely that you'll ever detect that while the ideas are just on paper, but they could force enormous redesigns of large swaths of content once you try to implement them.
Quizzical has some great advice there, Mike.
You've got everything written out, so now it's time to start trying out what you've created. GameMaker is a great free tool for testing out ideas. You could even raid your board games for dice and pieces to start testing it out that way. Have other people playtest the various systems in your game. See what they are doing and find out WHY they are doing it. How you may perceive the mechanics being used could be radically different from how others actually use them.
You'll find you have a ton of refining to do at that level. After that, it's getting the various elements to work together in the same enviroment. Test, change, refine.
Yeah, understood. I have 15 years of data programming experience, in which I always believed in a more procedural base approach of building projects unlike todays more object orientated rail based systems. It leads to a modular approach in development that provides a very stable backbone. Things take a bit longer to develop this way but are so much worth it and mistakes don't happen and you never code yourself into a corner. (things are done, tested and completed, and moved to the next problem) So that has helped tons with the initial design of the game.
And no I have not everthing written out yet Its a major task with tons yet to do, but i have hundreds of hours of theory and design completed, as well as lore and other stuff...
Wait... 15 years as a data programmer. So you're an adult?
Originally posted by Enigmatus Concepts and ideas don't mean jack, regardless of how elaborate and detailed they are until they are put into actual practice.
So what are you saying, no one should conceptualize anything because they don't mean jack? Looking at my notes here, not acheiving to be jack guess I can move foward.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Enigmatus Concepts and ideas don't mean jack, regardless of how elaborate and detailed they are until they are put into actual practice.
So what are you saying, no one should conceptualize anything because they don't mean jack? Looking at my notes here, not acheiving to be jack guess I can move foward.
No I'm saying that unless you put your ideas into practice, the idea is just that - an idea. Useful for setting groundwork, but not much else until the actual pieces are put down.
I dunno, I'm terrible at explaining what I'm trying to say, so maybe something got lost in translation.
Originally posted by Enigmatus Concepts and ideas don't mean jack, regardless of how elaborate and detailed they are until they are put into actual practice.
So what are you saying, no one should conceptualize anything because they don't mean jack? Looking at my notes here, not acheiving to be jack guess I can move foward.
No I'm saying that unless you put your ideas into practice, the idea is just that - an idea. Useful for setting groundwork, but not much else until the actual pieces are put down.
I dunno, I'm terrible at explaining what I'm trying to say, so maybe something got lost in translation.
Conceptualization of say PvP warzones would be an issue of difference from paper to action, but a valid reason of why people are there doing it does help its purpose.. Take SWTOR for example..At launch, no one really does warzones, becaues there was little point to it.. so they introduce dailies, to get people there.. they expected people to show up just because the game was star wars, and sith vs republic.... That was fail... Concept can indeed evolve purpose correctly... They failed from the drawing board in this case, which is why you need theory... I excel at theory and analyzation, but forum posting is cheap, its time to move forward into action
I excel at theory and analyzation, but forum posting is cheap, its time to move forward into action
Undelivered project, no one will even validate your parking.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Just the fact you started with "real gamer" as if some how you are better than anyone else means your idea will be flawed.
Let me put it in a very simple way, your system, your game, your idea if done all by one single person will only be the perfect game for that person and no one else.
A single person can not create the perfect mmo for other people to play only himself, the further you go into the details especially to the nth degree the further away from what anyone else will see as there good game.
You are either extremely niave or clueless on how game developement.
Let me give you an example of how things go awry for very subtle reasons from a project that I'm working on.
I wanted to make the world round. But a very large sphere is quite messy to work with, and would involve a ton of unnecessary calls to computationally expensive trig functions. So I decided to use a truncated icosahedron. It's basically the iconic soccer ball shape, though mine has smaller pentagons and non-regular hexagons.
Part of the idea was that if the world is "round", it can be light on one side of the world and dark on the other, at the same time. And the "dark" doesn't just mean "slighly darker colors" as in most games; it really means pitch black, you are likely to be eaten by a grue that you can't see dark. So players would have to stay on the "light" side of the world. Different heroes would be in different parts of the world, and when it's evening where you are, you get to town and switch to a hero in an area where it's morning.
Wherever the player is, the sun should be visible, at least if it's daytime. And the portions of objects that see direct sunlight should be brighter than those that don't. This is basically primitive shadowing, though I'm not having one object cast shadows on another, as that's basically intractible with standard rasterization. (Games that have such shadows have to do a ton of fakery to make it kind of work at all, but if you look closely, the shadows are always completely wrong, and I think they look ugly.)
If you're on a sphere and know that the sun is very far away and directly above some particular point on a sphere, then computing where the sun should be and the direction of sunlight is pretty easy to do. But what about a truncated icosahedron, or for that matter, any other polytope?
The idea I had was to push the polytope out to be a sphere. First, I'd push it out to be an icosahedron. Portions of the hexagons in a truncated icosahedron would map to triangles in an icosahedron in the obvious way. The pentagons would be split into five triangles, with each mapped to a portion of the triangle of an icosahedron that got cut off when truncating the icosahedron. This is pretty easy to do.
So now we have a position on a regular icosahedron. You can place the vertices of the icosahedron on a unit sphere. Any point on the surface of an icosahedron lies in some face. We can get any position in an equilateral triangle as as a linear combination of its coordinates in barycentric coordinates. We use those barycentric coordinates to take a linear combination of the vertex coordinates in R^3, and so we get coordinates for the player's position in R^3. Divide that position by its length and you have the player's position on a unit sphere.
This has some nice properties, too. If you're on an edge (which has probability zero, anyway), you can any facet containing that edge and get exactly the same end position on a sphere. This maps the player's position from a truncated icosahedron to a sphere continuously. Indeed, the inverse map is also continuous, so it's a way to give an explicit homeomorphism between a truncated icosahedron and the unit sphere. There's a lot of symmetry involved, which makes it easier to code.
Once we know where the player is on the unit sphere, we have to determine which directions constitute north, east, south, and west locally. So I decided that "south" would be the direction in which latitude decreases and longitude does not change. One could define north, east, and west analogously. Once you know which directions correspond to the cardinal compass directions, determine where the sun should be and which direction light should come from in the local coordinate system is just some trig, which is pretty easy.
Do you see the problem? It's subtle. When I first coded it the way I described, it was obvious that it was broken. So I dug around looking for bugs in my code, and once I had fixed all of the bugs I could find, it was still obviously broken. So I dug around still looking for bugs and couldn't find any. At a high level, it seems intuitively obvious that the algorithm should work.
It took me a while to realize that the algorithm is fundamentally wrong. To determine the angle between the sun and the ground, however, the algorithm works beautifully. To determine which direction sunlight should come from, I would have to scrap it and do something else entirely. Do you see why? Think you'd figure out why if the ideas never left paper? Think you'd figure out that there was even a problem if the ideas never left paper?
Being a gamer is very poor developer qualification...
Your preposition of "real gamer" is just silly, your ideas are no better than others.
Ughm, not sure where you are coming from? I am not saying my ideas are better, I am conceptualzing a game. I am also showing people what fun in games actually is. To my eyes, I can see that most developers have no clue of what fun is or how to design a game to be fun. Most games in the last few years are not even fun, they are work based upon game fundamentals in old successful works. They actually succeeded in stripping the fun from games.. If you notice you were having fun learning them, after the learning curve was over, you realized, you were bored right? There are reasons for this.
There are other problems such as designers think a little character waving his hand is fun... That is not fun.. That is cute, which is a big difference.
Finally, there is good design and there is bad design, sadly I see lots of bad design, designing against players... To make a game, you must design for your player(s), not against.
There are other problems such as designers think a little cute character waving his hand is fun... That is not fun.. That is cute, which is a big difference.
Designing an agenda.
What if your boss(es) want a different one?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Let me give you an example of how things go awry for very subtle reasons from a project that I'm working on.
(ALOT OF STUFF)
I'm terrible at understanding this, but I'll try to make a version I can understand.
I'm making a music video. I have the music and the video clips from whatever show I want it to be synced to.
I'm now getting everything together, and the footage is carefully placed so that it doesn't look like it jumps around or looks like a clip show. but I get to a point where I realize I cannot sync a particular piece of footage to the music WITHOUT causing it to look jumpy. So I start to fiddle around with some different clips and eventually find a way to make a smooth transition for that spot.
Only now I look over the whole product, and realize that while I might have solved that small problem, the whole video AFTER that area is completely off-sync, and the parts BEFORE the area are still very disconnected. I now have to go back and figure out how to deal with these new problems.
Did I get the general idea of your really long statement down?
Originally posted by mikecackle most developers have no clue of what fun is or how to design a game to be fun. Most games in the last few years are not even fun
Neither you know what fun is...for anyone except you.
Having superiority complex and being egocentric as much as you are is hardly going to help you with you endeavours at providing service to others...
Being a gamer is very poor developer qualification...
Your preposition of "real gamer" is just silly, your ideas are no better than others.
Ughm, not sure where you are coming from? I am not saying my ideas are better, I am conceptualzing a game. I am also showing people what fun in games actually is. To my eyes, I can see that most developers have no clue of what fun is or how to design a game to be fun. Most games in the last few years are not even fun, they are work based upon game fundamentals in old successful works. They actually succeeded in stripping the fun from games.. If you notice you were having fun learning them, after the learning curve was over, you realized, you were bored right? There are reasons for this.
There are other problems such as designers think a little character waving his hand is fun... That is not fun.. That is cute, which is a big difference.
Finally, there is good design and there is bad design, sadly I see lots of bad design, designing against players... To make a game, you must design for your player(s), not against.
Yeah, but the players may not necessarily know what is good for the game anymore than the devs do, which means the game could end up being crap regardless. It's a balancing act, not a "THE DEVS ARE GODS" or "THE PLAYERS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT" deal.
A lot of the details that need to be filled in don't become obvious until you have a game working with a lot of features already implemented. Once you have the game sitting there, it's completely obvious that you have some major components that are completely missing, but you didn't realize it while writing a document.
There are also a lot of things that on paper, look like they should work flawlessly. But once you implement them, it's obvious that they're completely broken. It's unlikely that you'll ever detect that while the ideas are just on paper, but they could force enormous redesigns of large swaths of content once you try to implement them.
Like what?
Going by the two people in those articles, I have to disagree. Many of the greatest ideas were made by people with great ideas.
many games have poor ideas because of poor blind decisions. Look at SWTOR. I called that game out when I first heard it was a Story Focused MMO. I automatically saw the flaw. If I were lead developer of that game, I would have never went down that kind of design path.
look at Bill Gates, and his great idea.
Its still scape goat to call all ideas bad. The reality is, lots of game developers build games with a certain egocentric mindset that you can't tell them they are wrong, because your idea is always bad. That's BS.
Going by the two people in those articles, I have to disagree. Many of the greatest ideas were made by people with great ideas.
many games have poor ideas because of poor blind decisions. Look at SWTOR. I called that game out when I first heard it was a Story Focused MMO. I automatically saw the flaw. If I were lead developer of that game, I would have never went down that kind of design path.
look at Bill Gates, and his great idea.
Its still scape goat to call all ideas bad. The reality is, lots of game developers build games with a certain egocentric mindset that you can't tell them they are wrong, because your idea is always bad. That's BS.
Ideas themselves are not a bad thing, but that's all they are - IDEAS. If that idea isn't put into practice, it's pretty much worthless, and even if you did, there is still no guarantee that what works in theory will work in practice.
most developers have no clue of what fun is or how to design a game to be fun. Most games in the last few years are not even fun
Neither you know what fun is...for anyone except you.
Having superiority complex and being egocentric as much as you are is hardly going to help you with you endeavours at providing service to others...
Thats your opinion, 10 peanuts says I can make kill 10 rats fun again.. Because you think killing 10 rats is work and boring only because the creator made it seem like work.
Sadly egocentric is the wrong word, but i guess you haters need all the angles of attack you can muster.
Going by the two people in those articles, I have to disagree. Many of the greatest ideas were made by people with great ideas.
many games have poor ideas because of poor blind decisions. Look at SWTOR. I called that game out when I first heard it was a Story Focused MMO. I automatically saw the flaw. If I were lead developer of that game, I would have never went down that kind of design path.
look at Bill Gates, and his great idea.
Its still scape goat to call all ideas bad. The reality is, lots of game developers build games with a certain egocentric mindset that you can't tell them they are wrong, because your idea is always bad. That's BS.
Ideas themselves are not a bad thing, but that's all they are - IDEAS. If that idea isn't put into practice, it's pretty much worthless, and even if you did, there is still no guarantee that what works in theory will work in practice.
Well if that's the case, why hold ideas back? Look at all these recent crappy MMOs that have come out. If they can push forward a crappy MMO idea, why can't others push forward a good idea for a MMO.
Only the vast minority of ideas ever get the chance to prove themselves, yet you want to call all ideas bad. Lol.
Comments
Yea right. That's just shuffling money around. You still need the big 3: Audience, Publisher, Studio.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You probably could skip the publisher unless you are looking to do physical box product.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's debatable ;D
Regards,
Mike Cackle
My YouTube Channel
Rofl !
So what are you saying, no one should conceptualize anything because they don't mean jack? Looking at my notes here, not acheiving to be jack guess I can move foward.
Regards,
Mike Cackle
My YouTube Channel
Not even a rickroll.
/sigh
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
No I'm saying that unless you put your ideas into practice, the idea is just that - an idea. Useful for setting groundwork, but not much else until the actual pieces are put down.
I dunno, I'm terrible at explaining what I'm trying to say, so maybe something got lost in translation.
Conceptualization of say PvP warzones would be an issue of difference from paper to action, but a valid reason of why people are there doing it does help its purpose.. Take SWTOR for example..At launch, no one really does warzones, becaues there was little point to it.. so they introduce dailies, to get people there.. they expected people to show up just because the game was star wars, and sith vs republic.... That was fail... Concept can indeed evolve purpose correctly...
They failed from the drawing board in this case, which is why you need theory... I excel at theory and analyzation, but forum posting is cheap, its time to move forward into action
Regards,
Mike Cackle
My YouTube Channel
Being a gamer is very poor developer qualification...
Your preposition of "real gamer" is just silly, your ideas are no better than others.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Just the fact you started with "real gamer" as if some how you are better than anyone else means your idea will be flawed.
Let me put it in a very simple way, your system, your game, your idea if done all by one single person will only be the perfect game for that person and no one else.
A single person can not create the perfect mmo for other people to play only himself, the further you go into the details especially to the nth degree the further away from what anyone else will see as there good game.
You are either extremely niave or clueless on how game developement.
Let me give you an example of how things go awry for very subtle reasons from a project that I'm working on.
I wanted to make the world round. But a very large sphere is quite messy to work with, and would involve a ton of unnecessary calls to computationally expensive trig functions. So I decided to use a truncated icosahedron. It's basically the iconic soccer ball shape, though mine has smaller pentagons and non-regular hexagons.
Part of the idea was that if the world is "round", it can be light on one side of the world and dark on the other, at the same time. And the "dark" doesn't just mean "slighly darker colors" as in most games; it really means pitch black, you are likely to be eaten by a grue that you can't see dark. So players would have to stay on the "light" side of the world. Different heroes would be in different parts of the world, and when it's evening where you are, you get to town and switch to a hero in an area where it's morning.
Wherever the player is, the sun should be visible, at least if it's daytime. And the portions of objects that see direct sunlight should be brighter than those that don't. This is basically primitive shadowing, though I'm not having one object cast shadows on another, as that's basically intractible with standard rasterization. (Games that have such shadows have to do a ton of fakery to make it kind of work at all, but if you look closely, the shadows are always completely wrong, and I think they look ugly.)
If you're on a sphere and know that the sun is very far away and directly above some particular point on a sphere, then computing where the sun should be and the direction of sunlight is pretty easy to do. But what about a truncated icosahedron, or for that matter, any other polytope?
The idea I had was to push the polytope out to be a sphere. First, I'd push it out to be an icosahedron. Portions of the hexagons in a truncated icosahedron would map to triangles in an icosahedron in the obvious way. The pentagons would be split into five triangles, with each mapped to a portion of the triangle of an icosahedron that got cut off when truncating the icosahedron. This is pretty easy to do.
So now we have a position on a regular icosahedron. You can place the vertices of the icosahedron on a unit sphere. Any point on the surface of an icosahedron lies in some face. We can get any position in an equilateral triangle as as a linear combination of its coordinates in barycentric coordinates. We use those barycentric coordinates to take a linear combination of the vertex coordinates in R^3, and so we get coordinates for the player's position in R^3. Divide that position by its length and you have the player's position on a unit sphere.
This has some nice properties, too. If you're on an edge (which has probability zero, anyway), you can any facet containing that edge and get exactly the same end position on a sphere. This maps the player's position from a truncated icosahedron to a sphere continuously. Indeed, the inverse map is also continuous, so it's a way to give an explicit homeomorphism between a truncated icosahedron and the unit sphere. There's a lot of symmetry involved, which makes it easier to code.
Once we know where the player is on the unit sphere, we have to determine which directions constitute north, east, south, and west locally. So I decided that "south" would be the direction in which latitude decreases and longitude does not change. One could define north, east, and west analogously. Once you know which directions correspond to the cardinal compass directions, determine where the sun should be and which direction light should come from in the local coordinate system is just some trig, which is pretty easy.
Do you see the problem? It's subtle. When I first coded it the way I described, it was obvious that it was broken. So I dug around looking for bugs in my code, and once I had fixed all of the bugs I could find, it was still obviously broken. So I dug around still looking for bugs and couldn't find any. At a high level, it seems intuitively obvious that the algorithm should work.
It took me a while to realize that the algorithm is fundamentally wrong. To determine the angle between the sun and the ground, however, the algorithm works beautifully. To determine which direction sunlight should come from, I would have to scrap it and do something else entirely. Do you see why? Think you'd figure out why if the ideas never left paper? Think you'd figure out that there was even a problem if the ideas never left paper?
Ughm, not sure where you are coming from? I am not saying my ideas are better, I am conceptualzing a game. I am also showing people what fun in games actually is. To my eyes, I can see that most developers have no clue of what fun is or how to design a game to be fun. Most games in the last few years are not even fun, they are work based upon game fundamentals in old successful works. They actually succeeded in stripping the fun from games.. If you notice you were having fun learning them, after the learning curve was over, you realized, you were bored right? There are reasons for this.
There are other problems such as designers think a little character waving his hand is fun... That is not fun.. That is cute, which is a big difference.
Finally, there is good design and there is bad design, sadly I see lots of bad design, designing against players... To make a game, you must design for your player(s), not against.
Regards,
Mike Cackle
My YouTube Channel
Designing an agenda.
What if your boss(es) want a different one?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I'm terrible at understanding this, but I'll try to make a version I can understand.
I'm making a music video. I have the music and the video clips from whatever show I want it to be synced to.
I'm now getting everything together, and the footage is carefully placed so that it doesn't look like it jumps around or looks like a clip show. but I get to a point where I realize I cannot sync a particular piece of footage to the music WITHOUT causing it to look jumpy. So I start to fiddle around with some different clips and eventually find a way to make a smooth transition for that spot.
Only now I look over the whole product, and realize that while I might have solved that small problem, the whole video AFTER that area is completely off-sync, and the parts BEFORE the area are still very disconnected. I now have to go back and figure out how to deal with these new problems.
Did I get the general idea of your really long statement down?
Neither you know what fun is...for anyone except you.
Having superiority complex and being egocentric as much as you are is hardly going to help you with you endeavours at providing service to others...
Yeah, but the players may not necessarily know what is good for the game anymore than the devs do, which means the game could end up being crap regardless. It's a balancing act, not a "THE DEVS ARE GODS" or "THE PLAYERS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT" deal.
Like what?
Going by the two people in those articles, I have to disagree. Many of the greatest ideas were made by people with great ideas.
many games have poor ideas because of poor blind decisions. Look at SWTOR. I called that game out when I first heard it was a Story Focused MMO. I automatically saw the flaw. If I were lead developer of that game, I would have never went down that kind of design path.
look at Bill Gates, and his great idea.
Its still scape goat to call all ideas bad. The reality is, lots of game developers build games with a certain egocentric mindset that you can't tell them they are wrong, because your idea is always bad. That's BS.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Ideas themselves are not a bad thing, but that's all they are - IDEAS. If that idea isn't put into practice, it's pretty much worthless, and even if you did, there is still no guarantee that what works in theory will work in practice.
Thats your opinion, 10 peanuts says I can make kill 10 rats fun again.. Because you think killing 10 rats is work and boring only because the creator made it seem like work.
Sadly egocentric is the wrong word, but i guess you haters need all the angles of attack you can muster.
Regards,
Mike Cackle
My YouTube Channel
Well if that's the case, why hold ideas back? Look at all these recent crappy MMOs that have come out. If they can push forward a crappy MMO idea, why can't others push forward a good idea for a MMO.
Only the vast minority of ideas ever get the chance to prove themselves, yet you want to call all ideas bad. Lol.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
It is not an opinion, it is a fact.
No one knows what people want. All you are left with are some clues based on past works and only way to find out is trial and error.
Yet, you stand here claiming you know better than anyone else...if that isn't egocentrism...