Contest Locusts is a term that was coined to describe a subset of players. You've already listed the many points used to define them, so I won't list them again. If a person fits that description, then it proves they exist. So I disagree with that point.
I do agree on some of your other points. MMORPG's were first created with longevity in mind. I don't mean months in longevity, but years. The early MMORPG's the set this foundation and defined the very genre it established were a model of what MMORPG's are.
Themeparks just don't support what MMORPG's were made to be. Themepark games are like console RPG's, in the sense that they're all about completing developer made content in a relatively strict order. Once that content is completed, then you'e finished with the game until new content is released, which takes far less time to complete than the original game did. The flaw with this game design is that people will complete the content faster than developers can create it, thus defeating the purpose of what MMORPG's are supposed to be.
Some people may say that the genre has evolved from its original purpose and that since there are a multitude of MMORPG's on the market, they no longer need to last years. Instead, it may even be preferable for them to last only a few months, so players can play 3-4 MMORPG's a year, including their expansions. If you take that approach, much the same way as you would SPG's, then MMORPG's are being made the way players want them to. I mean, what's the purpose of creating a game that will last a player years due to player driven content, when they'll just leave anyways when the next MMORPG is released? You can't deny that most players seem to game hop these days. You can say it's due to the quality of MMORPG's being released, but people are now used to game hopping every few months or so when a new game or expansion is released. I have my doubts that even the most avid sandbox fan will stick to their sandbox game when new MMORPG's are being released around them.
Originally posted by eyelolled So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?
His argument is that they are blowing through it in months and leaving because of too little content and finite endings to today's MMO content. Devs currently know how much content today's gamers consume in a given period. They either have to build for that group or not attract that group. Instead of doing either, they don't build with that group in mind and do catch-all advertising. The devs then blame the players for consuming the content too fast, despite them consuming it at the same rate they've done so for years.
One argument is "Well, there's no way to create content at the rate that players consume it," but then that begs the question "If you knew that, then why did you try to and think it magically would be enough this time around?"
If the content locusts are an outlier, then they are inconsequential. Don't attract them, ignore their presence, let them leave. However, to use them as an excuse or to define them as some manner of problem is to say they are a large enough group to be of influence. If that is the case, devs need to build for them or avoid attracting them, but once the devs acknowledge the content locusts are a significant number, the devs can no longer use them as an excuse as they saw the locusts coming ahead of time.
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
There can be no doubt that the majority of today’s MMO players are content locusts. The OP seems to think this is an excuse for poorly designed modern MMO’s, that the players are to blame not the MMO’s.
From the OP:
"Well the truth is there is no content locust. It is figment of our colective immaginations though a dangerous one at that becuase it distracts from the real issues that modern MMO themeparks are poorly designed and shifts the blame to the players."
Either you or I misunderstood the OP's message.
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
I agree with you that if it was open-ended content then the "locusts" would simply continue being productive, but i disagree that they don't exist in themepark games. If the game has an "ending" then there will be locusts. One could even argue that they could exist in open-ended games because they would devour the game at a high rate anyway and generally get bored of the existing activities anyway, regardless of how open-ended the game is. Just my two cents. Good read though.
Oh, what is this open-ended content then? Grinding shit for crafting? PvP?
Well, grinding is boring, PvP you can do in almost any game, and I'm not interested playing with a virtual dollhouse.
Everquest was a hugely grindy with uninspired quests with today's standards. Not to mention the strict trinity combat and manufactured dependencies. Today's market would not accept it. It would be a niche game.
If you want to get a serious discussion going, you must state specifically what is flawed or lacking and especially what is open-ended content and what are the virtues of it. Don't say "sandbox goals", list them. List them so we can shoot them down with common fucking sense.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Content locust are the people that rush though the content. Whatever it's takes them a few days, weeks or months the name is still correct and has nothing to do with the amount of content. It's simply about that group of gamers that just plays a lot faster then the avarage gamer.
It's a term that can be used despite your argument.
The thing is tho' it is the game that makes players behave this way. If the room had rounded corners of course the impact of such players would be softened.
I have met people tho' I'd call content consumed in sandbox games. In Shadowbane they'd literally melt down if their city was destroyed, in Second Life they'd have to literally hack virtual space to make room for all of their.. Collection?
Dynamic worlds are coming in MMOs. It took 4 years, but with the latest themepark games being literal flash in the pans, a lot of companies are crowd sourcing beyond the industry numbers to present something different. Then the investors will follow once one game breaks out.
It's a pretty typical enterainment industry cycle.
Originally posted by Coman Content locust are the people that rush though the content. Whatever it's takes them a few days, weeks or months the name is still correct and has nothing to do with the amount of content. It's simply about that group of gamers that just plays a lot faster then the avarage gamer.
The question then is how big is that group currently. If they are inconsequential in numbers, then they can be ignored. However, if they are a growing number of players then the games have to either be designed support that playstyle or marketed such that that people with that playstyle are not attracted to the game, otherwise the game will be adversely affected either in reviews/reputation or subscriber count.
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
I think that there are "content locuts" out there and that some games are not made to suit their lifestyle. The truth is that some people play games for 8 to even 18 hours a day! A themepark style game DOES have an end to it, at least untill expansions are made, and if a player decides to chew through content at that rate, it's their own fault and shouldn't be whining for more content faster than developers can create it. These types of players should find a sandbox game that has no end to it so they can play for a crazy amount of time and never reach an end because there isn't one.
I dunno, theres plenty of content in themeparks for me. And thats while playing at least 40 hours a week. Some people just rush through stuff. Its not a myth, they start the game and immediately think "Ok how i can get to max level as fast as I can?".
People do that in EverQuest now. Back then there werent the same players as there are now. We had real RPG gamers back then, now the market has expanded beyond the RPGers into the action/FPS gamers who just want the next challenge or thrill. FASTER FASTER FASTER! The people who get pissed when you don't clear the dungeon fast enough.
That stuff didn't exist in EverQuest because people took there time back then.
What? Poorly designed games? When you finish a book do you spend the next month reading the blurb on the back page? Of course games have limited content. Just what?
That's right there is no such thing as a content locust. It is a made up term that is brandied about fairly often on the subject of why games fail or see a massive drop off in subs just one month after release. Or more rather it is an excuse why players can completely beat through all the content in games like GW2 or SWTOR in a week.
Our games are NOT small or easymode they say it is players that are content locusts. Those content locusts are insatiable and there is no way to produce enough content that cannot keep them occupied for more than a couple of days. These players are constently rushing through the content, skipping cut scenes and not reading all the dialog. Then those same players are the first to complain when they reach the level cap that there is nothing for them to do. I could go on and on about this mythological creature called the content locust. Woe unto thee who suffers from the ravages of the content locust.
Well the truth is there is no content locust. It is figment of our colective immaginations though a dangerous one at that becuase it distracts from the real issues that modern MMO themeparks are poorly designed and shifts the blame to the players. The phenomenon asociated with content locusts are self made problems. It is fundemental flaw in game design that every story has a built in ending. Pretty much every player will eventually reach that ending and complete the game. It is at that point every player falls into the content locust trap that it is your own fault if you beat the game too quickly. However, it is the developer's fault that this happens for failing to build open ended game play elements into their MMO.
Sandbox games have no ending and thus can never be beaten by the content locust. In a sandbox game the content locust is just another player going about their business co-creating the story that has yet to be writen. If you look at SWG how did one complete the goal of player owned taverns? Or how did one become a 'feared' bounty hunter? There was no magical number you could reach that said ok you are successful tavern owner now or are 'feared" bounty hunter. These were open ended objectives that were left open to interpretation. The players determined those goals not the developers. Some sandbox games had entire player created cities.
Even if you go back to EverQuest which some say is the first themepark the quest in EverQuest was a singlar open ended player goal that never ended. The game was not called EverQuest because the game was full of quests with endings. Everquest was a themepark built on a sandbox goal that 'your' quest never ended. That is the origin of the name.
MMORPGs were player goal focused before the sandbox formula was changed. When developers started making strick themeparks with endings the result is the players got labled as "content locusts" even though the players themselves did not change. Modern MMOs have forgotten their roots and why people play these games and thus the player base is punished and blamed for doing what they always did. It is time bury the idea that players are content locusts and go back to making open ended games that are more sandbox focused.
Your "thesis" is flawed from the beginning. Of course there are content locusts. There are people who specifically set out from the beginning to tear through the content as soon as possible so they can say "Look at me! I win.". A phrase was coined to describe this type of player, because hey, gamers like to talk about stuff. Its easier to slap labels on something that encompasses a type of playstyle rather than reiterating the whole thing over and over in a paragraph long description.
The rest of your arguement of themepark vs sandbox, moaning about the inadequecies of themepark and hinging it on your main idea is kind of weak. Themepark vs sandbox? Yeah, that hasn't been regurgitated ad naseum for the last 3 years. But now you are trying to put a new spin on it to focus on the utter failure of the themepart design.
I give you a 4 for effort (out of 10). There are content locusts. Themeparks aren't for everyone; there's nothing wrong with them or their content design. Sandparks aren't the Holy Grail; they are just different. One is not better than the other, so praising sandbox design and trashing companies for limited themepark content is disingenuous. That is what your post is really about, and treating the Content Locust like the Jackaloup or Bigfoot doesn't strengthen your stance, rather it rests it on shakey legs.
There can be no doubt that the majority of today’s MMO players are content locusts. The OP seems to think this is an excuse for poorly designed modern MMO’s, that the players are to blame not the MMO’s.
From the OP:
"Well the truth is there is no content locust. It is figment of our colective immaginations though a dangerous one at that becuase it distracts from the real issues that modern MMO themeparks are poorly designed and shifts the blame to the players."
Either you or I misunderstood the OP's message.
Indeed it should have been: "The OP seems to think this is an excuse for poorly designed modern MMO’s, that the players are being used to take the blame not the MMO’s."
Originally posted by Coman Content locust are the people that rush though the content. Whatever it's takes them a few days, weeks or months the name is still correct and has nothing to do with the amount of content. It's simply about that group of gamers that just plays a lot faster then the avarage gamer.
The question then is how big is that group currently. If they are inconsequential in numbers, then they can be ignored. However, if they are a growing number of players then the games have to either be designed support that playstyle or marketed such that that people with that playstyle are not attracted to the game, otherwise the game will be adversely affected either in reviews/reputation or subscriber count.
Tough to estimate group size and tough to even define what "adversely affected sub count" really means.
When we have these discussion from the other side, we usually arrive at constructs like "loosing half the subs in 2 months is NORMAL" and "200k subs for a 50mil project is SUCCESS".
Sandbox games have no ending and thus can never be beaten by the content locust. In a sandbox game the content locust is just another player going about their business co-creating the story that has yet to be writen.
wait what?
You first say that there is no content locust but then say that there is a type of game that is immune to the content locus and that in these games the "content locust" becomes a regular player.
How can you say there is no such thing when you clearly use it as an example?
Perhaps a better way to look at it is that theme park games allow for a "content locust" type of player whereas sandboxes do not create this type of player?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by eyelolled So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?
Is there an echo in here? There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.
that is all fine, but I would be more inclined to term it "there should be no such thing as content locusts". Terming it the way you do makes it sound like "There is no such thing as fat people, because salads taste great"
Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue with your position, and I don't want to derail your thread over semantics within the title.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Originally posted by eyelolled So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?
Is there an echo in here? There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.
This logic is pretty much proven wrong. There is no "need" to have open ended play driven content. WOW does not have it. Maple Story does not have it. Heck, all raid focus MMO does not have it.
Originally posted by eyelolled So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?
Is there an echo in here? There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.
Your thesis is just wrong, there are many self-professed content locusts, myself included. All I want to do is consume fun content. When the content stops being fun, or when I've consumed it all, I go elsewhere.
The amount of content available has no bearing whatsoever on whether people want to consume it like locusts.
Why would I as a so-called 'content locust'; want to play a sandbox game?
I primary play games because I like a good story and sandbox games mostly have awful stories and some have none.
Look at EVE and how the in-game story and how it is presented to the players is just god-awful (EVE Chronicles were awesome though).
If game devs want my $$, they need to provide me with a good story / lore.
That's my personal preference, if you have a problem with that, tough.
Maybe you just never heard the story of the conquest of Null-sec or the story of the Mittani. Guess you will never understand this then.
You confuse a story that is only good after the fact, something that you might read in a book, and a story that your character lives through that is good while it's being experienced.
I thought "content locust" was a term brought up on these forums. It wasn't developers who talked about them, it was us. They are the people who will go through as much content as possible, as fast as possible, because that's what they do. They are people who buy single player FPS and RPG only to finish them in marathon weekend gaming sessions. I work about three cubicles down from one of these people. The amount of content the game provides is not relevant. It's the way they play games. Moving over to Eve doesn't mean they aren't the type of player that would consume all the available content in a single player game in a weekend.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by eyelolled So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?
Is there an echo in here? There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.
Your thesis is just wrong, there are many self-professed content locusts, myself included. All I want to do is consume fun content. When the content stops being fun, or when I've consumed it all, I go elsewhere.
The amount of content available has no bearing whatsoever on whether people want to consume it like locusts.
That is the wrong definition of "poorly designed".
I say a game is well design if it is fun to play. Duration does not matter.
Originally posted by eyelolled So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?
Is there an echo in here? There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.
This logic is pretty much proven wrong. There is no "need" to have open ended play driven content. WOW does not have it. Maple Story does not have it. Heck, all raid focus MMO does not have it.
I agree with you. If the OPs thesis was correct then why are games like EQ, EQ2, & WoW still going? Seems to me that the OP is another sandbox type of player and there's nothing wrong with that. It's easy to blame devs if a person rushes to level cap and bypasses content. The truth is, it's that players own fault, not the devs in most cases.
I thought "content locust" was a term brought up on these forums. It wasn't developers who talked about them, it was us. They are the people who will go through as much content as possible, as fast as possible, because that's what they do. They are people who buy single player FPS and RPG only to finish them in marathon weekend gaming sessions. I work about three cubicles down from one of these people. The amount of content the game provides is not relevant. It's the way they play games. Moving over to Eve doesn't mean they aren't the type of player that would consume all the available content in a single player game in a weekend.
There was a columnist here a while back that I believe coined the term. It has since been brought up regularly.
Wonder where she went? Turnover rate here is attrocious.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Originally posted by eyelolled So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?
Is there an echo in here? There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.
Your thesis is just wrong, there are many self-professed content locusts, myself included. All I want to do is consume fun content. When the content stops being fun, or when I've consumed it all, I go elsewhere.
The amount of content available has no bearing whatsoever on whether people want to consume it like locusts.
That is the wrong definition of "poorly designed".
I say a game is well design if it is fun to play. Duration does not matter.
I didn't write that, but I do agree with you. He seems to think that people will stop consuming content for the sake of consuming content, which is what a content locust is, if there is just more content. No, that'll just keep them busy longer. He also seems to think that content locusts are going to go out and create their own content if they are given those tools. I have zero interest in creating content. I want to play a game, not write a game. I've done more than enough content creation in my life, I just want to have a good time and play a game.
Comments
Contest Locusts is a term that was coined to describe a subset of players. You've already listed the many points used to define them, so I won't list them again. If a person fits that description, then it proves they exist. So I disagree with that point.
I do agree on some of your other points. MMORPG's were first created with longevity in mind. I don't mean months in longevity, but years. The early MMORPG's the set this foundation and defined the very genre it established were a model of what MMORPG's are.
Themeparks just don't support what MMORPG's were made to be. Themepark games are like console RPG's, in the sense that they're all about completing developer made content in a relatively strict order. Once that content is completed, then you'e finished with the game until new content is released, which takes far less time to complete than the original game did. The flaw with this game design is that people will complete the content faster than developers can create it, thus defeating the purpose of what MMORPG's are supposed to be.
Some people may say that the genre has evolved from its original purpose and that since there are a multitude of MMORPG's on the market, they no longer need to last years. Instead, it may even be preferable for them to last only a few months, so players can play 3-4 MMORPG's a year, including their expansions. If you take that approach, much the same way as you would SPG's, then MMORPG's are being made the way players want them to. I mean, what's the purpose of creating a game that will last a player years due to player driven content, when they'll just leave anyways when the next MMORPG is released? You can't deny that most players seem to game hop these days. You can say it's due to the quality of MMORPG's being released, but people are now used to game hopping every few months or so when a new game or expansion is released. I have my doubts that even the most avid sandbox fan will stick to their sandbox game when new MMORPG's are being released around them.
His argument is that they are blowing through it in months and leaving because of too little content and finite endings to today's MMO content. Devs currently know how much content today's gamers consume in a given period. They either have to build for that group or not attract that group. Instead of doing either, they don't build with that group in mind and do catch-all advertising. The devs then blame the players for consuming the content too fast, despite them consuming it at the same rate they've done so for years.
One argument is "Well, there's no way to create content at the rate that players consume it," but then that begs the question "If you knew that, then why did you try to and think it magically would be enough this time around?"
If the content locusts are an outlier, then they are inconsequential. Don't attract them, ignore their presence, let them leave. However, to use them as an excuse or to define them as some manner of problem is to say they are a large enough group to be of influence. If that is the case, devs need to build for them or avoid attracting them, but once the devs acknowledge the content locusts are a significant number, the devs can no longer use them as an excuse as they saw the locusts coming ahead of time.
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
From the OP:
"Well the truth is there is no content locust. It is figment of our colective immaginations though a dangerous one at that becuase it distracts from the real issues that modern MMO themeparks are poorly designed and shifts the blame to the players."
Either you or I misunderstood the OP's message.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
I agree with you that if it was open-ended content then the "locusts" would simply continue being productive, but i disagree that they don't exist in themepark games. If the game has an "ending" then there will be locusts. One could even argue that they could exist in open-ended games because they would devour the game at a high rate anyway and generally get bored of the existing activities anyway, regardless of how open-ended the game is. Just my two cents. Good read though.
Oh, what is this open-ended content then? Grinding shit for crafting? PvP?
Well, grinding is boring, PvP you can do in almost any game, and I'm not interested playing with a virtual dollhouse.
Everquest was a hugely grindy with uninspired quests with today's standards. Not to mention the strict trinity combat and manufactured dependencies. Today's market would not accept it. It would be a niche game.
If you want to get a serious discussion going, you must state specifically what is flawed or lacking and especially what is open-ended content and what are the virtues of it. Don't say "sandbox goals", list them. List them so we can shoot them down with common fucking sense.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It's a term that can be used despite your argument.
The thing is tho' it is the game that makes players behave this way. If the room had rounded corners of course the impact of such players would be softened.
I have met people tho' I'd call content consumed in sandbox games. In Shadowbane they'd literally melt down if their city was destroyed, in Second Life they'd have to literally hack virtual space to make room for all of their.. Collection?
Dynamic worlds are coming in MMOs. It took 4 years, but with the latest themepark games being literal flash in the pans, a lot of companies are crowd sourcing beyond the industry numbers to present something different. Then the investors will follow once one game breaks out.
It's a pretty typical enterainment industry cycle.
a yo ho ho
The question then is how big is that group currently. If they are inconsequential in numbers, then they can be ignored. However, if they are a growing number of players then the games have to either be designed support that playstyle or marketed such that that people with that playstyle are not attracted to the game, otherwise the game will be adversely affected either in reviews/reputation or subscriber count.
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
I dunno, theres plenty of content in themeparks for me. And thats while playing at least 40 hours a week. Some people just rush through stuff. Its not a myth, they start the game and immediately think "Ok how i can get to max level as fast as I can?".
People do that in EverQuest now. Back then there werent the same players as there are now. We had real RPG gamers back then, now the market has expanded beyond the RPGers into the action/FPS gamers who just want the next challenge or thrill. FASTER FASTER FASTER! The people who get pissed when you don't clear the dungeon fast enough.
That stuff didn't exist in EverQuest because people took there time back then.
Your "thesis" is flawed from the beginning. Of course there are content locusts. There are people who specifically set out from the beginning to tear through the content as soon as possible so they can say "Look at me! I win.". A phrase was coined to describe this type of player, because hey, gamers like to talk about stuff. Its easier to slap labels on something that encompasses a type of playstyle rather than reiterating the whole thing over and over in a paragraph long description.
The rest of your arguement of themepark vs sandbox, moaning about the inadequecies of themepark and hinging it on your main idea is kind of weak. Themepark vs sandbox? Yeah, that hasn't been regurgitated ad naseum for the last 3 years. But now you are trying to put a new spin on it to focus on the utter failure of the themepart design.
I give you a 4 for effort (out of 10). There are content locusts. Themeparks aren't for everyone; there's nothing wrong with them or their content design. Sandparks aren't the Holy Grail; they are just different. One is not better than the other, so praising sandbox design and trashing companies for limited themepark content is disingenuous. That is what your post is really about, and treating the Content Locust like the Jackaloup or Bigfoot doesn't strengthen your stance, rather it rests it on shakey legs.
Indeed it should have been: "The OP seems to think this is an excuse for poorly designed modern MMO’s, that the players are being used to take the blame not the MMO’s."
Tough to estimate group size and tough to even define what "adversely affected sub count" really means.
When we have these discussion from the other side, we usually arrive at constructs like "loosing half the subs in 2 months is NORMAL" and "200k subs for a 50mil project is SUCCESS".
Flame on!
wait what?
You first say that there is no content locust but then say that there is a type of game that is immune to the content locus and that in these games the "content locust" becomes a regular player.
How can you say there is no such thing when you clearly use it as an example?
Perhaps a better way to look at it is that theme park games allow for a "content locust" type of player whereas sandboxes do not create this type of player?
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
that is all fine, but I would be more inclined to term it "there should be no such thing as content locusts". Terming it the way you do makes it sound like "There is no such thing as fat people, because salads taste great"
Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue with your position, and I don't want to derail your thread over semantics within the title.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
This logic is pretty much proven wrong. There is no "need" to have open ended play driven content. WOW does not have it. Maple Story does not have it. Heck, all raid focus MMO does not have it.
Your thesis is just wrong, there are many self-professed content locusts, myself included. All I want to do is consume fun content. When the content stops being fun, or when I've consumed it all, I go elsewhere.
The amount of content available has no bearing whatsoever on whether people want to consume it like locusts.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
You confuse a story that is only good after the fact, something that you might read in a book, and a story that your character lives through that is good while it's being experienced.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I thought "content locust" was a term brought up on these forums. It wasn't developers who talked about them, it was us. They are the people who will go through as much content as possible, as fast as possible, because that's what they do. They are people who buy single player FPS and RPG only to finish them in marathon weekend gaming sessions. I work about three cubicles down from one of these people. The amount of content the game provides is not relevant. It's the way they play games. Moving over to Eve doesn't mean they aren't the type of player that would consume all the available content in a single player game in a weekend.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I only have one small problem with the thread title
its wrong.
otherwise great thread.
That is the wrong definition of "poorly designed".
I say a game is well design if it is fun to play. Duration does not matter.
I agree with you. If the OPs thesis was correct then why are games like EQ, EQ2, & WoW still going? Seems to me that the OP is another sandbox type of player and there's nothing wrong with that. It's easy to blame devs if a person rushes to level cap and bypasses content. The truth is, it's that players own fault, not the devs in most cases.
There was a columnist here a while back that I believe coined the term. It has since been brought up regularly.
Wonder where she went? Turnover rate here is attrocious.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
I didn't write that, but I do agree with you. He seems to think that people will stop consuming content for the sake of consuming content, which is what a content locust is, if there is just more content. No, that'll just keep them busy longer. He also seems to think that content locusts are going to go out and create their own content if they are given those tools. I have zero interest in creating content. I want to play a game, not write a game. I've done more than enough content creation in my life, I just want to have a good time and play a game.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None