If only the market truly were free. AS it stands right now, I LOVE the theme and feel of ESO but absolutely cannot stand PvP, so essentially I will have no end-game as end-game is heavily crafting influenced and all good end-game mats and recipes come from PvP areas.
Why would you make this post and be just wrong ? Where have you ever seen anything that tells you all good end game mats and recipes come from PVP areas ? I understand you don't want to pvp but why in the hell would you post 100 % false information unless it's your agenda to stop folks from enjoying playing the game the way they want .End game involves two different pve zones and one pvp zone please explain how you got the short end of the stick
Allowing people to do PvE-Only in Cyrodiil is like allowing people to turn on a cheat that makes them invulnerable to other players, thereby allowing much easier completion of content that other people would have to strive much harder to finish successfully.
I mean, why don't we just add easy modes to every dungeon and give everyone the same rewards no matter which version they did? It doesn't take away from other people, right?
But it does. It takes away the sense of achievement other people get from doing the harder difficulty, because MMOs are games based on achievement. Let's face it, they're not about the story, not like a lot of single player games. And they're certainly not about the mechanics, because single player games win there too. It's about playing with and against other players.
So let me reflect the question of 'forcing things on other people': If someone doesn't want to PvP, there are far more appropriate games out there to play. Why ruin this one for the people who like having that hybrid difficulty, that sense of mystery and unknown waiting to jump on you around the corner? Why make our accomplishments meaningless? If there were entirely separate servers, that would be one thing. Since one person couldn't stomp through cyrodiil on easy mode and stand next to people who had done it on a harder 'difficulty'.
The day where new MMOs are coming out all the time to suit all types of playstyles is when I'll be happy but right now the genre feels so shallow to me in the upcoming year.
With hundreds of MMOs currently available covering countless playstyles and plenty more in development, if you can't find an MMO that caters to your playstyle, the problem isn't MMOs.
Agreed. There are no shortage of MMO's no matter what your play style is. The counter on this site reads, Games: 642.
?? Really? Pardon my ignorance but despite searching for a couple of years now I have yet to find a game that meets my desired playstyle. Given your wide knowledge of the topic can you please point me at the titles that meet my requirements.
No PvP, none at all
No SciFi themes I want a high fantasy game without gadgets and gizmos
No twitch play, with a 300ms lag and aging reflexes twitch play has no interest for me
Content and game mechanics geared towards players who want to play 40 hours a week for several years in the same virtual world.
Open world play not endless repetition of the same 5 dungeons
Exclusive first person view point
I would love to see your list of games that meet that list released in the last 5 years.
That seems to be the point. The person never thinks it's them.
... but you said "no matter what your play style is." I defined a play style and your response is ... what exactly?
You seem to be unable to provide an example of a game that meets that play style and have instead resorted to some sort of personal attack. Nor have you provided a game that meets the criteria set by avatarair.
If there are hundreds of MMO's out there and someone can't find one they enjoy what does that mean? And how is that a personal attack? And where did I offer to research games for people?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
This thread initially poses the question as to why certain mmo players try to force others into their playstyle.
However, the recurring theme seems to be 'Why isn't there an Mmo out for ME to play?'
How does an non-existant Mmo become the fault of any group of players and their playstyles? I can understand if the PvP/PvE crowd got into it (yet again), or the themepark/sandbox debate.
As the title goes, I'll say that it's only normal for some people to react this way because we all have an ego and some feel the need to show a false sense of superiority. It's everywhere not just gaming.
All the iterations of mmo playstyle and design have not yet been achieved. Many sometime soon we'll all get what we find the 'perfect' game, though that's highly unlikely.
LOL, no it does not make sense to "turn back to page one and read it again? And then again? And again?" but it does make sense to prefer to read a 10,000 page epic rather than 1,000 10 page short stories.
The total amount of content provided in any themepark MMO you care to name is insufficient to play for years without repeating content. So even if a game did devote all of it's resources to just one content type, you still wouldn't be getting your 10,000 page epic, and regardless of what the length did end up being, you would still have to repeat it if you wanted to play for years without taking breaks. Devoting yourself entirely to a single game is an inefficient way to consume content.
If we throw out the premise of the "one game to rule them all" that you play for a decade, then what argument is left for limiting games to a single content type? Why doesn't it make more sense to play a game for what you enjoy, then move on to another game and play it for what you enjoy? The amount of total enjoyment you get out of playing just the parts you like of ten different games for a year each is probably more than you can even theoretically squeeze out of a single game over ten years, no matter how much you start out loving it, because everything gets old eventually.
Oh that it was true, ten games in a year that I would like to play. Last year I played Everquest II, not because it was the "one game to rule them all" but because it was the only game I had any interest in at all, so far this year I am playing Everquest II not because it has improved (it has got worse IMHO) but because it is still the only game; FFXIV, ESO, Wildstar, Landmark no interest at all. So yes I expect that I will be playing Everquest II all year again.
So despite repeating content till my eyes bleed EQ2 is it.
So whats the good of conversation about a truth when you girls are fighting over who the rightest right? Now your just like them ..........so stop its stupid and annoying.
Originally posted by CazNeerg Why does a game have to be completely lacking in a given type of content for you to enjoy it? As long as the particular kind of content you dislike is segregated in it's own area, which you are under no obligation to enter, what is wrong with simply enjoying the rest of the game until it stops being fun, and then moving on to something else? Why do you have to be able to enjoy all of a game in order to be able to enjoy any of it?
The underlined section implies a particular class of playstyles sometimes referred to as MMO tourists. If I play one game, and one game only, for a period of years then providing content for one playstyle comes at the expense of additional content for another playstyle in that game.
I would argue that it's simply a sign of mental health. It makes sense when you "finish" something to move on to something else. When you finish reading a good book, do you immediately turn back to page one and read it again? And then again? And again?
If you stop enjoying your relationship do you give up on it or do you try to fix it?
Did you really just compare a relationship with an MMO?
And how exactly does a player, fix, an MMO? His analogy was correct.
MMOs impact my life and the lives of many of my friends.
Yes I did because it's the general idea of abandoning something after it stops being "fun" that I dislike personally.
A player fixes an MMO by pushing the developers to provide more options.
This thread initially poses the question as to why certain mmo players try to force others into their playstyle.
However, the recurring theme seems to be 'Why isn't there an Mmo out for ME to play?'
How does an non-existant Mmo become the fault of any group of players and their playstyles? I can understand if the PvP/PvE crowd got into it (yet again), or the themepark/sandbox debate.
As the title goes, I'll say that it's only normal for some people to react this way because we all have an ego and some feel the need to show a false sense of superiority. It's everywhere not just gaming.
All the iterations of mmo playstyle and design have not yet been achieved. Many sometime soon we'll all get what we find the 'perfect' game, though that's highly unlikely.
Keep hoping, maybe one will come soon.
Well it deviated to that topic mainly because somebody said that "there's already something for everybody". Which sparked that discussion. I guess I fel that it is the responsibility of players to care about the fun of more than just themselves. But then again I've always thought tha the world would be a better place in general if we cared about every other person as much as we cared about ourselves.
The day where new MMOs are coming out all the time to suit all types of playstyles is when I'll be happy but right now the genre feels so shallow to me in the upcoming year.
With hundreds of MMOs currently available covering countless playstyles and plenty more in development, if you can't find an MMO that caters to your playstyle, the problem isn't MMOs.
Agreed. There are no shortage of MMO's no matter what your play style is. The counter on this site reads, Games: 642.
?? Really? Pardon my ignorance but despite searching for a couple of years now I have yet to find a game that meets my desired playstyle. Given your wide knowledge of the topic can you please point me at the titles that meet my requirements.
No PvP, none at all
No SciFi themes I want a high fantasy game without gadgets and gizmos
No twitch play, with a 300ms lag and aging reflexes twitch play has no interest for me
Content and game mechanics geared towards players who want to play 40 hours a week for several years in the same virtual world.
Open world play not endless repetition of the same 5 dungeons
Exclusive first person view point
I would love to see your list of games that meet that list released in the last 5 years.
That seems to be the point. The person never thinks it's them.
... but you said "no matter what your play style is." I defined a play style and your response is ... what exactly?
You seem to be unable to provide an example of a game that meets that play style and have instead resorted to some sort of personal attack. Nor have you provided a game that meets the criteria set by avatarair.
If there are hundreds of MMO's out there and someone can't find one they enjoy what does that mean? And how is that a personal attack? And where did I offer to research games for people?
My point is that there are a lot of different play styles out there and when you sort those 642 games into categories there are an awful lot of them in a very few categories and quite a number of categories with no games in them at all.
No you did not offer to research games for people but you said that there existed games for every play style and when people point out that there are play styles without games you at least imply that it is their fault for wanting a game to meet their play style.
The day where new MMOs are coming out all the time to suit all types of playstyles is when I'll be happy but right now the genre feels so shallow to me in the upcoming year.
With hundreds of MMOs currently available covering countless playstyles and plenty more in development, if you can't find an MMO that caters to your playstyle, the problem isn't MMOs.
Agreed. There are no shortage of MMO's no matter what your play style is. The counter on this site reads, Games: 642.
?? Really? Pardon my ignorance but despite searching for a couple of years now I have yet to find a game that meets my desired playstyle. Given your wide knowledge of the topic can you please point me at the titles that meet my requirements.
No PvP, none at all
No SciFi themes I want a high fantasy game without gadgets and gizmos
No twitch play, with a 300ms lag and aging reflexes twitch play has no interest for me
Content and game mechanics geared towards players who want to play 40 hours a week for several years in the same virtual world.
Open world play not endless repetition of the same 5 dungeons
Exclusive first person view point
I would love to see your list of games that meet that list released in the last 5 years.
That seems to be the point. The person never thinks it's them.
... but you said "no matter what your play style is." I defined a play style and your response is ... what exactly?
You seem to be unable to provide an example of a game that meets that play style and have instead resorted to some sort of personal attack. Nor have you provided a game that meets the criteria set by avatarair.
If there are hundreds of MMO's out there and someone can't find one they enjoy what does that mean? And how is that a personal attack? And where did I offer to research games for people?
My point is that there are a lot of different play styles out there and when you sort those 642 games into categories there are an awful lot of them in a very few categories and quite a number of categories with no games in them at all.
No you did not offer to research games for people but you said that there existed games for every play style and when people point out that there are play styles without games you at least imply that it is their fault for wanting a game to meet their play style.
.... and yes that is a personal attack.
So your saying it's not my fault if I can't find what I'm looking for? That I should give that responsibility to someone or something else? I believe that finding what I enjoy is my responsibility.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Yes I did because it's the general idea of abandoning something after it stops being "fun" that I dislike personally.
We are talking about entertainment products though. The purpose of the product is to provide enjoyment. When a product fails to fulfill the purpose for which it's designed, it's time to invest in a different product.
Originally posted by avatarair
I guess I fel that it is the responsibility of players to care about the fun of more than just themselves. But then again I've always thought tha the world would be a better place in general if we cared about every other person as much as we cared about ourselves.
Nothing would ever get accomplished in the world if every person cared about everyone else as much as about themselves. Almost every major scientific advancement in the history of the world has been the result (though sometimes the unintentional result) of some combination of two things; military spending and the profit motive. Neither of which would exist if every single person cared as much about others as about themselves. If that were the case, we would probably all still be living in caves. Everybody would have the same sized patch of dirt in those caves, and the same amount of furs to wear, but I have to say I prefer the way things turned out with people embracing their natural selfishness.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
OP is being asinine. Whining that ESO isn't PvE isn't going to change a thing. The developers chose this because it fits their vision of how ESO should be played. People forget that video games are still the creation of people looking to project a certain impression of their work. You wouldn't go asking Call of Duty to start incorporating a puzzle game because you feel neglected by the FPS aspect. Don't be so self centered. The world doesn't revolve around you.
You either play, or you don't. Vote with your wallet.
When you've done something right, no one will know you've done anything at all. -Unknown
Well it deviated to that topic mainly because somebody said that "there's already something for everybody". Which sparked that discussion. I guess I fel that it is the responsibility of players to care about the fun of more than just themselves. But then again I've always thought tha the world would be a better place in general if we cared about every other person as much as we cared about ourselves.
Worthy ideal and should be strived for. However, preference being the topic, how can devs create every permutation of playstyle and expect to attract enough players to make some money. They have to go with their market research and/or their 'vision' of what will make a great game.
Another of life's lessons is compromise. Sometimes we have to give stuff up, especially in relationships if we want to have the long lasting adventure. What to compromise can be arduous and bitter-sweet but often necessary.
Again, time may provide us all with what we want, or as close to what want to satisfy.
On the contrast, Wildstar looks exactly like what I want in an MMO, but lacks any form of seriousness, graphical fidelity, or complexity (both inner and outer), and to boot I HATE HATE HATE anything that looks sci-fi.
Originally posted by avatarair
Well I can't say I'm intolerant but I'm certainly not flexible on my beliefs for how I want things to pan out for me (emphasis on me, nobody else). I'm very picky.
Originally posted by avatarair
Problem is graphical fidelity and up-to-date engines and mechanics and such are fundamental to my enjoyment. I've found that I'm the type of person that can't play a game that's older than 3 years without just feeling disgusted a few minutes in and dropping it altogether.
However end-game is PvP based, which literally is a game breaker for me.
Originally posted by avatarair
You see the flipside doesn't work. Because the fact is that there isn't an MMORPG for every taste.
Originally posted by avatarair
Originally posted by Octagon7711
Ok then...show me a game made in the last 2 years with graphics aimed towards realism that has no PvP requirement for any of its content (except for PvP-only content), that has a sub, that has a focus on exploration, that has action oriented combat, and that has a fantasy medieval theme with little to no sci-fi or steampunk elements. Also this game should be much more theme park than sandbox.
Originally posted by avatarair
...Oh wait.
It would be shit. Like it is now. Lots of suffering. Lots of inequality. Lots of death. Lots of bigotry. Lots of shit.
Originally posted by avatarair
Nobody is under any obligation to do anything in MMOs. That doesn't mean most of us don't feel obligated to do things.
I dunno OP, you come across as very..... intolerant.
You want everything perfect, it will never happen. You have to learn to "nut up or shut up", and adapt to the situation, or get out of the genre completely.
It's really not that hard, nor that socially deep.
As for why others try to force their beliefs on you, it's because in their way of thinking they know what's best for you.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
My point is that there are a lot of different play styles out there and when you sort those 642 games into categories there are an awful lot of them in a very few categories and quite a number of categories with no games in them at all.
No you did not offer to research games for people but you said that there existed games for every play style and when people point out that there are play styles without games you at least imply that it is their fault for wanting a game to meet their play style.
.... and yes that is a personal attack.
So your saying it's not my fault if I can't find what I'm looking for? That I should give that responsibility to someone or something else? I believe that finding what I enjoy is my responsibility.
It may or not be your fault if you can't find what you are looking for, nor is it the responsibility of others to provide what you are looking for.
However, it is a personal attack to suggest that someone has a problem for having an aspiration that has yet to be met.
BTW you still have not substantiated your claim that there is a game for every play style.
Yes I did because it's the general idea of abandoning something after it stops being "fun" that I dislike personally.
We are talking about entertainment products though. The purpose of the product is to provide enjoyment. When a product fails to fulfill the purpose for which it's designed, it's time to invest in a different product.
Originally posted by avatarair
I guess I fel that it is the responsibility of players to care about the fun of more than just themselves. But then again I've always thought tha the world would be a better place in general if we cared about every other person as much as we cared about ourselves.
Nothing would ever get accomplished in the world if every person cared about everyone else as much as about themselves. Almost every major scientific advancement in the history of the world has been the result (though sometimes the unintentional result) of some combination of two things; military spending and the profit motive. Neither of which would exist if every single person cared as much about others as about themselves. If that were the case, we would probably all still be living in caves. Everybody would have the same sized patch of dirt in those caves, and the same amount of furs to wear, but I have to say I prefer the way things turned out with people embracing their natural selfishness.
That's absolutely not true. Imagine if we were as inspired to protect and provide for ourselves and we were to provide for others?
If anything, progress would double. We would have much more motivation. Science would advance more quickly since we would have the weight of every soul on our minds.
I'm talking about biologically; just like we have that pressure to provide for ourselves, imagine if we had an equal amount of pressure to provide for everybody around us? That would be utopia.
On the contrast, Wildstar looks exactly like what I want in an MMO, but lacks any form of seriousness, graphical fidelity, or complexity (both inner and outer), and to boot I HATE HATE HATE anything that looks sci-fi.
Originally posted by avatarair
Well I can't say I'm intolerant but I'm certainly not flexible on my beliefs for how I want things to pan out for me (emphasis on me, nobody else). I'm very picky.
Originally posted by avatarair
Problem is graphical fidelity and up-to-date engines and mechanics and such are fundamental to my enjoyment. I've found that I'm the type of person that can't play a game that's older than 3 years without just feeling disgusted a few minutes in and dropping it altogether.
However end-game is PvP based, which literally is a game breaker for me.
Originally posted by avatarair
You see the flipside doesn't work. Because the fact is that there isn't an MMORPG for every taste.
Originally posted by avatarair
Originally posted by Octagon7711
Ok then...show me a game made in the last 2 years with graphics aimed towards realism that has no PvP requirement for any of its content (except for PvP-only content), that has a sub, that has a focus on exploration, that has action oriented combat, and that has a fantasy medieval theme with little to no sci-fi or steampunk elements. Also this game should be much more theme park than sandbox.
Originally posted by avatarair
...Oh wait.
It would be shit. Like it is now. Lots of suffering. Lots of inequality. Lots of death. Lots of bigotry. Lots of shit.
Originally posted by avatarair
Nobody is under any obligation to do anything in MMOs. That doesn't mean most of us don't feel obligated to do things.
Kyleran, it is useless to argue with him, as he is a subjectivist and not a utilitarian. In his mind, his views are the only right ones. Arguing is pointless.
Consent and free will violations are pretty much front and center as the basis or "right" for common western morality, so why is it that certain groups of MMO players love oh so much to enforce playstyle they prefer onto people that don't prefer those playstyles.
What instigated this is reading about how some people are against adding a PvE-only Cyrodil campaign in ESO, for example. Or older examples like WoW where they fought to improve the way where one could permanently toggle PvP off.
While this is of course more prominent for PVP'ers in my knowledge this kind of vitriol also comes from PvE'ers (hardcore more often than not), and "hardcore" gamers in general.
I mean I've pretty much accepted that it's the way of human to be blissfully and ignorantly bigoted and try to dominate and subdue people that don't agree with them because of some perceived strength or level of value to their specific opinion simply because...well, because. But at the same time it just gets hard to wrap my head around it.
Why can't you let people just be whoever the hell they want to be? They're themselves anyway, you restricting them doesn't change that in any way. It just makes life shittier from a utilitarian standpoint.
What's worse is the convoluted logic these people will sometimes employ to defend these claims.
And before you post "Of you're complaining about intolerance by being intolerant of intolerance" well god damnit there's no way out of the tolerance paradox that doesn't conflict with my moral standings, flimsy as they may be, so I just say fuck it. If it helps I'm approaching this from a utilitarian POV as well so just take it from there.
Because if developers are spending time and money on things you want, they aren't spending time and money on things other people want. Granted talking doesn't mean devs will do it, but it's where these ideas start and players best way to deal with that fear is to try to convince you otherwise. It's just human nature.
I definitely wondered the same thing as the OP has and it's really sad when I think about it. Women and men who play MMORPG's, some of them are just plain immature, narrow minded and selfish. That explains some of why others stomp their feet demanding others to conform to their religion but other reasons exist of course.
I don't subscribe to anyone's opinion but MY OWN. I don't like PVP, doesn't interest me one bit and I won't play it because someone says I should.
Consent and free will violations are pretty much front and center as the basis or "right" for common western morality, so why is it that certain groups of MMO players love oh so much to enforce playstyle they prefer onto people that don't prefer those playstyles.
What instigated this is reading about how some people are against adding a PvE-only Cyrodil campaign in ESO, for example. Or older examples like WoW where they fought to improve the way where one could permanently toggle PvP off.
While this is of course more prominent for PVP'ers in my knowledge this kind of vitriol also comes from PvE'ers (hardcore more often than not), and "hardcore" gamers in general.
I mean I've pretty much accepted that it's the way of human to be blissfully and ignorantly bigoted and try to dominate and subdue people that don't agree with them because of some perceived strength or level of value to their specific opinion simply because...well, because. But at the same time it just gets hard to wrap my head around it.
Why can't you let people just be whoever the hell they want to be? They're themselves anyway, you restricting them doesn't change that in any way. It just makes life shittier from a utilitarian standpoint.
What's worse is the convoluted logic these people will sometimes employ to defend these claims.
And before you post "Of you're complaining about intolerance by being intolerant of intolerance" well god damnit there's no way out of the tolerance paradox that doesn't conflict with my moral standings, flimsy as they may be, so I just say fuck it. If it helps I'm approaching this from a utilitarian POV as well so just take it from there.
Because if developers are spending time and money on things you want, they aren't spending time and money on things other people want. Granted talking doesn't mean devs will do it, but it's where these ideas start and players best way to deal with that fear is to try to convince you otherwise. It's just human nature.
But if you provide for multiple audiences shouldn't it pay for itself?
Unless of course an audience can't support itself but that only happens when you get very niche.
Is it just me or does this entire thread seem hypocritical. You're talking about how some players are intolerable of your play style but then you come in another post and say how you are intolerable of their play style. Why do YOU feel the need to force your game play on others?
That's absolutely not true. Imagine if we were as inspired to protect and provide for ourselves and we were to provide for others?
If anything, progress would double. We would have much more motivation. Science would advance more quickly since we would have the weight of every soul on our minds.
I'm talking about biologically; just like we have that pressure to provide for ourselves, imagine if we had an equal amount of pressure to provide for everybody around us? That would be utopia.
You really need to study your history. Most of the technological advancements which have increased our ability to "help our fellow man" exist as offshoots of military research and/or the desire to make money. There is more money to be made providing what the rich want than what the poor need, but often as a result of pursuing new products to serve the wants of the few, other products are created with utility for the many as well.
In a world where every individual cared about every other individual as much as about himself, needs would always take precedence over wants, and no one person's wants would take precedence over any other person's. As a result, most technological advancements would never be created in the first place, because most of them in their earliest forms do not address any needs, and without the ability to see the future, people wouldn't know which would eventually address needs more efficiently that current technology until after they had already been developed. Which they wouldn't be, because they weren't perceived as needed.
It's to the ultimate benefit of the human race that altruism isn't a universal trait. It would be crippling to our ability to advance if it were. Utopia is a pipe dream.
(And guess what else? There would probably be no entertainment products of any kind, because that would be considered a frivolous use of resources. Most of the escapist products that make the average life less dull exist solely because of the selfishness of people who want to make money from selling them to you.)
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
That's absolutely not true. Imagine if we were as inspired to protect and provide for ourselves and we were to provide for others?
If anything, progress would double. We would have much more motivation. Science would advance more quickly since we would have the weight of every soul on our minds.
I'm talking about biologically; just like we have that pressure to provide for ourselves, imagine if we had an equal amount of pressure to provide for everybody around us? That would be utopia.
You really need to study your history. Most of the technological advancements which have increased our ability to "help our fellow man" exist as offshoots of military research and/or the desire to make money. There is more money to be made providing what the rich want than what the poor need, but often as a result of pursuing new products to serve the wants of the few, other products are created with utility for the many as well.
In a world where every individual cared about every other individual as much as about himself, needs would always take precedence over wants, and no one person's wants would take precedence over any other person's. As a result, most technological advancements would never be created in the first place, because most of them in their earliest forms do not address any needs, and without the ability to see the future, people wouldn't know which would eventually address needs more efficiently that current technology until after they had already been developed. Which they wouldn't be, because they weren't perceived as needed.
It's to the ultimate benefit of the human race that altruism isn't a universal trait. It would be crippling to our ability to advance if it were. Utopia is a pipe dream.
(And guess what else? There would probably be no entertainment products of any kind, because that would be considered a frivolous use of resources. Most of the escapist products that make the average life less dull exist solely because of the selfishness of people who want to make money from selling them to you.)
I'm not disputing with you on history, only potential.
In a world where every individual cared about everybody else, needs would take *less* precedence because needs would be met much faster, and the desire for wants would be multiplied. Furthermore wants would be for other individuals so the fields would likely branch much more than they have in today's societies. A society that works for itself is simply far more efficient than a collection of individuals working for their own goals. And the pyramid of needs says that once needs are done, wants take precedence.
Caring about everybody else is not eliminating desires. Our desires might be buried underneath our desires to help others, but if others have hidden desires for entertainment it would be another's motivation to produce said entertainment.
the same stuff would happen because we'd still be the same, just have an added strong biological impulse. It would just mean that others work for our needs while we work for theirs. It'd come with, however, a whole slew of benefits (and yes, negatives, but the positives outweigh them IMHO) that would make progress come much faster.
Utopia certainly is no pipe dream. It's just very far off and very hard to get to.
Originally posted by jonesing22 Is it just me or does this entire thread seem hypocritical. You're talking about how some players are intolerable of your play style but then you come in another post and say how you are intolerable of their play style. Why do YOU feel the need to force your game play on others?
Wait where did I talk about forcing people into my game play style?
Unless you mean forcing people to be tolerant of playstyles is intolerant of people who are not tolerant. If that's the case, you may want to read my whole post.
Comments
Why would you make this post and be just wrong ? Where have you ever seen anything that tells you all good end game mats and recipes come from PVP areas ? I understand you don't want to pvp but why in the hell would you post 100 % false information unless it's your agenda to stop folks from enjoying playing the game the way they want .End game involves two different pve zones and one pvp zone please explain how you got the short end of the stick
Here's my 'convoluted logic':
Allowing people to do PvE-Only in Cyrodiil is like allowing people to turn on a cheat that makes them invulnerable to other players, thereby allowing much easier completion of content that other people would have to strive much harder to finish successfully.
I mean, why don't we just add easy modes to every dungeon and give everyone the same rewards no matter which version they did? It doesn't take away from other people, right?
But it does. It takes away the sense of achievement other people get from doing the harder difficulty, because MMOs are games based on achievement. Let's face it, they're not about the story, not like a lot of single player games. And they're certainly not about the mechanics, because single player games win there too. It's about playing with and against other players.
So let me reflect the question of 'forcing things on other people': If someone doesn't want to PvP, there are far more appropriate games out there to play. Why ruin this one for the people who like having that hybrid difficulty, that sense of mystery and unknown waiting to jump on you around the corner? Why make our accomplishments meaningless? If there were entirely separate servers, that would be one thing. Since one person couldn't stomp through cyrodiil on easy mode and stand next to people who had done it on a harder 'difficulty'.
If there are hundreds of MMO's out there and someone can't find one they enjoy what does that mean? And how is that a personal attack? And where did I offer to research games for people?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
This thread initially poses the question as to why certain mmo players try to force others into their playstyle.
However, the recurring theme seems to be 'Why isn't there an Mmo out for ME to play?'
How does an non-existant Mmo become the fault of any group of players and their playstyles? I can understand if the PvP/PvE crowd got into it (yet again), or the themepark/sandbox debate.
As the title goes, I'll say that it's only normal for some people to react this way because we all have an ego and some feel the need to show a false sense of superiority. It's everywhere not just gaming.
All the iterations of mmo playstyle and design have not yet been achieved. Many sometime soon we'll all get what we find the 'perfect' game, though that's highly unlikely.
Keep hoping, maybe one will come soon.
Oh that it was true, ten games in a year that I would like to play. Last year I played Everquest II, not because it was the "one game to rule them all" but because it was the only game I had any interest in at all, so far this year I am playing Everquest II not because it has improved (it has got worse IMHO) but because it is still the only game; FFXIV, ESO, Wildstar, Landmark no interest at all. So yes I expect that I will be playing Everquest II all year again.
So despite repeating content till my eyes bleed EQ2 is it.
So whats the good of conversation about a truth when you girls are fighting over who the rightest right? Now your just like them ..........so stop its stupid and annoying.
MMOs impact my life and the lives of many of my friends.
Yes I did because it's the general idea of abandoning something after it stops being "fun" that I dislike personally.
A player fixes an MMO by pushing the developers to provide more options.
Well it deviated to that topic mainly because somebody said that "there's already something for everybody". Which sparked that discussion. I guess I fel that it is the responsibility of players to care about the fun of more than just themselves. But then again I've always thought tha the world would be a better place in general if we cared about every other person as much as we cared about ourselves.
My point is that there are a lot of different play styles out there and when you sort those 642 games into categories there are an awful lot of them in a very few categories and quite a number of categories with no games in them at all.
No you did not offer to research games for people but you said that there existed games for every play style and when people point out that there are play styles without games you at least imply that it is their fault for wanting a game to meet their play style.
.... and yes that is a personal attack.
So your saying it's not my fault if I can't find what I'm looking for? That I should give that responsibility to someone or something else? I believe that finding what I enjoy is my responsibility.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
OP is being asinine. Whining that ESO isn't PvE isn't going to change a thing. The developers chose this because it fits their vision of how ESO should be played. People forget that video games are still the creation of people looking to project a certain impression of their work. You wouldn't go asking Call of Duty to start incorporating a puzzle game because you feel neglected by the FPS aspect. Don't be so self centered. The world doesn't revolve around you.
You either play, or you don't. Vote with your wallet.
When you've done something right, no one will know you've done anything at all. -Unknown
Worthy ideal and should be strived for. However, preference being the topic, how can devs create every permutation of playstyle and expect to attract enough players to make some money. They have to go with their market research and/or their 'vision' of what will make a great game.
Another of life's lessons is compromise. Sometimes we have to give stuff up, especially in relationships
if we want to have the long lasting adventure. What to compromise can be arduous and bitter-sweet but often necessary.
Again, time may provide us all with what we want, or as close to what want to satisfy.
I dunno OP, you come across as very..... intolerant.
You want everything perfect, it will never happen. You have to learn to "nut up or shut up", and adapt to the situation, or get out of the genre completely.
It's really not that hard, nor that socially deep.
As for why others try to force their beliefs on you, it's because in their way of thinking they know what's best for you.
And in some cases, they are right.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It may or not be your fault if you can't find what you are looking for, nor is it the responsibility of others to provide what you are looking for.
However, it is a personal attack to suggest that someone has a problem for having an aspiration that has yet to be met.
BTW you still have not substantiated your claim that there is a game for every play style.
I feel your pain.
That's absolutely not true. Imagine if we were as inspired to protect and provide for ourselves and we were to provide for others?
If anything, progress would double. We would have much more motivation. Science would advance more quickly since we would have the weight of every soul on our minds.
I'm talking about biologically; just like we have that pressure to provide for ourselves, imagine if we had an equal amount of pressure to provide for everybody around us? That would be utopia.
Because if developers are spending time and money on things you want, they aren't spending time and money on things other people want. Granted talking doesn't mean devs will do it, but it's where these ideas start and players best way to deal with that fear is to try to convince you otherwise. It's just human nature.
I definitely wondered the same thing as the OP has and it's really sad when I think about it. Women and men who play MMORPG's, some of them are just plain immature, narrow minded and selfish. That explains some of why others stomp their feet demanding others to conform to their religion but other reasons exist of course.
I don't subscribe to anyone's opinion but MY OWN. I don't like PVP, doesn't interest me one bit and I won't play it because someone says I should.
But if you provide for multiple audiences shouldn't it pay for itself?
Unless of course an audience can't support itself but that only happens when you get very niche.
You really need to study your history. Most of the technological advancements which have increased our ability to "help our fellow man" exist as offshoots of military research and/or the desire to make money. There is more money to be made providing what the rich want than what the poor need, but often as a result of pursuing new products to serve the wants of the few, other products are created with utility for the many as well.
In a world where every individual cared about every other individual as much as about himself, needs would always take precedence over wants, and no one person's wants would take precedence over any other person's. As a result, most technological advancements would never be created in the first place, because most of them in their earliest forms do not address any needs, and without the ability to see the future, people wouldn't know which would eventually address needs more efficiently that current technology until after they had already been developed. Which they wouldn't be, because they weren't perceived as needed.
It's to the ultimate benefit of the human race that altruism isn't a universal trait. It would be crippling to our ability to advance if it were. Utopia is a pipe dream.
(And guess what else? There would probably be no entertainment products of any kind, because that would be considered a frivolous use of resources. Most of the escapist products that make the average life less dull exist solely because of the selfishness of people who want to make money from selling them to you.)
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I'm not disputing with you on history, only potential.
In a world where every individual cared about everybody else, needs would take *less* precedence because needs would be met much faster, and the desire for wants would be multiplied. Furthermore wants would be for other individuals so the fields would likely branch much more than they have in today's societies. A society that works for itself is simply far more efficient than a collection of individuals working for their own goals. And the pyramid of needs says that once needs are done, wants take precedence.
Caring about everybody else is not eliminating desires. Our desires might be buried underneath our desires to help others, but if others have hidden desires for entertainment it would be another's motivation to produce said entertainment.
the same stuff would happen because we'd still be the same, just have an added strong biological impulse. It would just mean that others work for our needs while we work for theirs. It'd come with, however, a whole slew of benefits (and yes, negatives, but the positives outweigh them IMHO) that would make progress come much faster.
Utopia certainly is no pipe dream. It's just very far off and very hard to get to.
Wait where did I talk about forcing people into my game play style?
Unless you mean forcing people to be tolerant of playstyles is intolerant of people who are not tolerant. If that's the case, you may want to read my whole post.