Players that like horror and tragedy games expect them to deliver - so they wouldn't be upset unless the games turn out to be something else entirely - like a FIFA game instead of a zombie game - that sure would upset the players.
Just saying, a proper horror/tragedy is meant to be horrific/tragic. Those are both fundamentally upsetting emotions regardless of whether or not it's what you are pursuing out of a title. A decent thriller is going to leave you something to fret about after watching or playing it.
Your notion of upset is just calling out a more finite aspect of whether or not a person's expectations are being met. When Nariu asks for a genre, there are multiples where some form of that emotion plays a heavy role in them. Players like horror and tragedy functionally because it is upsetting. It has themes that get to them emotionally and at times either connect with or experience that sensation of getting physically or mentally wound up in response to what is happening. It's an emotional investment that's somewhat integral to those genres. For example, the way people tended to respond to the Silent Hill demo "P.T."
An example of the "wrong" kinda upset would be as you said someone buying a title and expecting it to be one then and turning out to be another. Like expecting Resident Evil to be a horror and the only really scary thing about it being the controls and inventory. That is certainly not a situation you want a person attaching that emotion too.
Addressing MMO's as a genre is a bit of a sideways endeavor to begin with as most people skip immediately to "MMORPG", and that means they immediately gloss over a lot of factors around what an "MMO" is versus the genre setting that it is being utilized to develop. It means there is both an ignored variety in MMOs and an undue focus on a narrow genre of the platform.
Just addressing the notion of upsetting players itself regardless of all this, Vermillion said it pretty well.
"... you allow them to fail, lose, lose something or generally have something unpleasant happen to them..."
When an upsetting event happens to a player it certainly can be seen as a negative thing. It fundamentally is. But that does not mandate that it is an element that exists to solely work against the player. Rather, it can reinforce the value of other aspects of the game, guide in finding better strategies and play styles, or even be an aspect of emotional investment into the events of the game. It develops that notion of "challenging" content with purpose and weight to action as well as simply making events meaningful on a personal level.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Players that like horror and tragedy games expect them to deliver - so they wouldn't be upset unless the games turn out to be something else entirely - like a FIFA game instead of a zombie game - that sure would upset the players.
Just saying, a proper horror/tragedy is meant to be horrific/tragic. Those are both fundamentally upsetting emotions regardless of whether or not it's what you are pursuing out of a title. A decent thriller is going to leave you something to fret about after watching or playing it.
so? They are not upsetting the gamers by delivering an unsatisfying product.
What is stupid to you is actually relevant. Games and real life are the same minus real life danger when it comes to wanting something that provokes thought and adheres to some realism or you get the jar effect.
lol .. really? You throw fire balls in real life? you command space ships in real life?
Video games are made to ESCAPE real life. Real life is irrelevant.
You've never heard of simulation games apparently?
So? Not all games are sims, and few MMOs are. Don't tell me we "simulate" "real" magic in fantasy game.
Games can have realistic and unrealistic elements at the same time. I don't see how one precludes the other. A game with magic can't try to simulate realistic sword fighting or a flight sim can't use sci-fi technology?
Games can have realistic and unrealistic elements at the same time. I don't see how one precludes the other. A game with magic can't try to simulate realistic sword fighting or a flight sim can't use sci-fi technology?
I see how ... fun.
A realistic element should be treated no different than an unrealistic one ... and be included only if it is fun (to the target audience).
Hence, if players don't like to walk ... put in a teleport and make up some mumbo jumbo (magic in fantasy games, adv tech in sci-fi games) to explain it.
The goal of games is fun (to its audience). Be real for realism sake is a non-starter.
Games can have realistic and unrealistic elements at the same time. I don't see how one precludes the other. A game with magic can't try to simulate realistic sword fighting or a flight sim can't use sci-fi technology?
I see how ... fun.
A realistic element should be treated no different than an unrealistic one ... and be included only if it is fun (to the target audience).
Hence, if players don't like to walk ... put in a teleport and make up some mumbo jumbo (magic in fantasy games, adv tech in sci-fi games) to explain it.
The goal of games is fun (to its audience). Be real for realism sake is a non-starter.
Are we talking about trying to make a game that everyone likes by allowing everyone to by-pass any game mechanic they don't determine to be "fun". Sounds like a terrible game.
Games can have realistic and unrealistic elements at the same time. I don't see how one precludes the other. A game with magic can't try to simulate realistic sword fighting or a flight sim can't use sci-fi technology?
I see how ... fun.
A realistic element should be treated no different than an unrealistic one ... and be included only if it is fun (to the target audience).
Hence, if players don't like to walk ... put in a teleport and make up some mumbo jumbo (magic in fantasy games, adv tech in sci-fi games) to explain it.
The goal of games is fun (to its audience). Be real for realism sake is a non-starter.
Are we talking about trying to make a game that everyone likes by allowing everyone to by-pass any game mechanic they don't determine to be "fun". Sounds like a terrible game.
wait ... making a game that everyone likes is "terrible"? You don't want games that you like? What kind of logic is this?
No one says it is easy to do ... but if successful, isn't a game that everyone likes .. is a GOOD thing?
If you haven't noticed yet some posters go out of their way to be intentionally obtuse and use circular reasoning to keep the discussion going. (or beat the dead horse)
Look at the success of the survival genre. Just a matter of time until the same gameplay mechanics make their way back to MMORPGs where most of them were first introduced.
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
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
Games can have realistic and unrealistic elements at the same time. I don't see how one precludes the other. A game with magic can't try to simulate realistic sword fighting or a flight sim can't use sci-fi technology?
I see how ... fun.
A realistic element should be treated no different than an unrealistic one ... and be included only if it is fun (to the target audience).
Hence, if players don't like to walk ... put in a teleport and make up some mumbo jumbo (magic in fantasy games, adv tech in sci-fi games) to explain it.
The goal of games is fun (to its audience). Be real for realism sake is a non-starter.
Well your original statement I replied to was saying realistic elements have no place in video games which I find a stupid statement because plenty of games have succeeded with those kind of elements and they add to the fun of those games for a lot of people.
Now you seem to be arguing something completely different. I don't recall ever saying that realism which doesn't add to fun is a good thing. However I don't think you will ever find universal agreement on what is fun in games. What is just "boring walking" to you may be a major element adding to the immersion and fun of another player. Is there anything saying that your idea of fun is more valid than that person's?
What is just "boring walking" to you may be a major element adding to the immersion and fun of another player. Is there anything saying that your idea of fun is more valid than that person's?
Of course what is fun FOR ME may not be fun for others.
However, devs can check if something is fun for a MAJORITY of their audience. Now you have find walking (with nothing else to do) fun, but the fact that devs make fast travel options indicate that a lot of their audience does not agree with you.
But the point is this .. if enough people find some elements not-fun (realistic or not) such as slow travel, looking for NPCs, waiting for boat rides, down-time, it will be gone no matter how "realistic" you think it is.
If you haven't noticed yet some posters go out of their way to be intentionally obtuse and use circular reasoning to keep the discussion going. (or beat the dead horse)
Look at the success of the survival genre. Just a matter of time until the same gameplay mechanics make their way back to MMORPGs where most of them were first introduced.
Those types of posters usually tend to go on an unintended vacay eventually, which can be mildly entertaining.
As for the success of survival games, it is quite telling and should not be ignored. I definitely agree that we could very well see those mechanics make a return to the MMORPG genre.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
As this and other threads show, huge portions of the playerbase of MMO games are completely confused by the difference between difficulty and repetition. They essentially think in smaller chunks (thinking in larger chunks comes with age, generally) and thus miss the fact that challenge can be spread out without losing the "fun per minute" rate.
So the "tedium" in EQ came packaged with greater enjoyment at the end, thus the same rate of enjoyment per session, or averaged over several sessions.
This fact, that huge portions of the gamer market are children and are unaware, is the direct cause of the dumbing down of games, through the mechanism of profit.
You've missed a crucial point, Narius; my claim that a higher reward occurs at the end of gameplay of the early EQ style. Thus, your final thoughts are a straw man; I am not claiming that tedium won't reduce the average. I'm in fact admitting that it will, and offering a counter to increase it again.
Your core argument, "why bother with even a minute of tedium," rather perfectly highlights my core point from my first post. As I attempted to point out, different people (generally adults vs children) can obtain X enjoyment from fun of different lengths. This is why some people do drugs all their life and some save money for retirement until they are millionaires. Do they have different amounts of fun? I assert not.
As to raising the total enjoyment at every moment of play time, sure, this is possible. But there are so many different types of fun. I tend to view existing in another world as more fun than simple execution of logical neural pathways. Hence my preference for early EQ as opposed to Candy Crush or, these days, WoW.
Your core argument, "why bother with even a minute of tedium," rather perfectly highlights my core point from my first post. As I attempted to point out, different people (generally adults vs children) can obtain X enjoyment from fun of different lengths. This is why some people do drugs all their life and some save money for retirement until they are millionaires. Do they have different amounts of fun? I assert not.
You do realise that games are being "dumbed down" because of adults, not kids? This is also backed up by the fact the average gamer is 31, up from last years 30.
Kids have all the time in the world to play, explore and learn game mechanics within MMOs. Whilst most adults don't. And let's get some thing straight, the mechanics are hardly hard to grasp in most MMOs.
I'm being challenged a lot more per play session in the newer MMOs than the older ones so I'm glad they're cutting out the parts that mainly just tested my patience, not my brains.
As to raising the total enjoyment at every moment of play time, sure, this is possible. But there are so many different types of fun. I tend to view existing in another world as more fun than simple execution of logical neural pathways. Hence my preference for early EQ as opposed to Candy Crush or, these days, WoW.
If that is the case, it is not tedium for you. You just like what is tedious for others.
However, if the game is not designed for you, again, why does it need even a min of tedium?
Different games cater to different audience. And if walking is tedious for your audience, why even give them 10 second of it? There is no point.
EQ has many tedious part for many .. probably not you. Hence its design is no longer relevant to new games. But i do have to ask you .. will you play a game with lots of tedium if you have the choice of having fun every min?
Your core argument, "why bother with even a minute of tedium," rather perfectly highlights my core point from my first post. As I attempted to point out, different people (generally adults vs children) can obtain X enjoyment from fun of different lengths. This is why some people do drugs all their life and some save money for retirement until they are millionaires. Do they have different amounts of fun? I assert not.
You do realise that games are being "dumbed down" because of adults, not kids? This is also backed up by the fact the average gamer is 31, up from last years 30.
Kids have all the time in the world to play, explore and learn game mechanics within MMOs. Whilst most adults don't. And let's get some thing straight, the mechanics are hardly hard to grasp in most MMOs.
I'm being challenged a lot more per play session in the newer MMOs than the older ones so I'm glad they're cutting out the parts that mainly just tested my patience, not my brains.
Which MMOs are challenging you more and in what ways, I'm curious to know.
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
Which MMOs are challenging you more and in what ways, I'm curious to know.
They're not challenging me more as in they're more challenging. Tab target based combat, old and new are pretty much the same as far as challenge. It's just the leveling experience in the newer games is less tedious/challenging thanks to LFG tool/fast travel to dungeons.
Which MMOs are challenging you more and in what ways, I'm curious to know.
They're not challenging me more as in they're more challenging. Tab target based combat, old and new are pretty much the same as far as challenge. It's just the leveling experience in the newer games is less tedious/challenging thanks to LFG tool/fast travel to dungeons.
Which MMOs are challenging you more and in what ways, I'm curious to know.
any e-sport MMO like LoL or WoT is challenging, because you can always find some players better than yourself.
PvP is always a hell of a lot more challenging than PvE.
That is a load of garbage....... The AI, in my Arma 3 epoch server are way more challenging than players are. You just play games where they devote 0 time to the AI. immodium said:
Your core argument, "why bother with even a minute of tedium," rather perfectly highlights my core point from my first post. As I attempted to point out, different people (generally adults vs children) can obtain X enjoyment from fun of different lengths. This is why some people do drugs all their life and some save money for retirement until they are millionaires. Do they have different amounts of fun? I assert not.
You do realise that games are being "dumbed down" because of adults, not kids? This is also backed up by the fact the average gamer is 31, up from last years 30.
Kids have all the time in the world to play, explore and learn game mechanics within MMOs. Whilst most adults don't. And let's get some thing straight, the mechanics are hardly hard to grasp in most MMOs.
I'm being challenged a lot more per play session in the newer MMOs than the older ones so I'm glad they're cutting out the parts that mainly just tested my patience, not my brains.
Any new mmo does not test your brains as you put it.......... They don't even require you to think, they require you to follow a gps marker, and slap your keyboard. There is one exception to this rule, and that is TSW, which 99% of the people I have seen, just skip the brain thinking part, cheat and get the walk through, or just ask in the chat.
But each to their own, you would play BF4, which to me is just a keyboard bashing game, with 0 skill, instant respawn, and nothing. I would play Arma 3, where if you make one mistake, your 24 hour playing, just ended you with nothing, because one decided to sprint when they should of ball crawled.
Most people watch mindless entertain like action shows, or prime time tv. 1 percent watch only documentaries.
Which MMOs are challenging you more and in what ways, I'm curious to know.
They're not challenging me more as in they're more challenging. Tab target based combat, old and new are pretty much the same as far as challenge. It's just the leveling experience in the newer games is less tedious/challenging thanks to LFG tool/fast travel to dungeons.
That is a load of garbage....... The AI, in my Arma 3 epoch server are way more challenging than players are. You just play games where they devote 0 time to the AI. immodium said:
Most people watch mindless entertain like action shows, or prime time tv. 1 percent watch only documentaries.
Why would I play Arma 3 when it's quite apparent it's being played by not very skilled gamers if the AI can out match them. LOL.
You stick to your mindless action shows, I'll stick to my documentaries. Both happy then.
Comments
Your notion of upset is just calling out a more finite aspect of whether or not a person's expectations are being met. When Nariu asks for a genre, there are multiples where some form of that emotion plays a heavy role in them. Players like horror and tragedy functionally because it is upsetting. It has themes that get to them emotionally and at times either connect with or experience that sensation of getting physically or mentally wound up in response to what is happening. It's an emotional investment that's somewhat integral to those genres. For example, the way people tended to respond to the Silent Hill demo "P.T."
An example of the "wrong" kinda upset would be as you said someone buying a title and expecting it to be one then and turning out to be another. Like expecting Resident Evil to be a horror and the only really scary thing about it being the controls and inventory. That is certainly not a situation you want a person attaching that emotion too.
Addressing MMO's as a genre is a bit of a sideways endeavor to begin with as most people skip immediately to "MMORPG", and that means they immediately gloss over a lot of factors around what an "MMO" is versus the genre setting that it is being utilized to develop. It means there is both an ignored variety in MMOs and an undue focus on a narrow genre of the platform.
Just addressing the notion of upsetting players itself regardless of all this, Vermillion said it pretty well.
"... you allow them to fail, lose, lose something or generally have something unpleasant happen to them..."
When an upsetting event happens to a player it certainly can be seen as a negative thing. It fundamentally is. But that does not mandate that it is an element that exists to solely work against the player. Rather, it can reinforce the value of other aspects of the game, guide in finding better strategies and play styles, or even be an aspect of emotional investment into the events of the game. It develops that notion of "challenging" content with purpose and weight to action as well as simply making events meaningful on a personal level.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You want to impose your preferences on everyone? Why do you care if the other guy want to play an easy game or a hard one?
What is wrong with having many versions (or a difficulty slider) so you will find the version you like ... and so does everyone else?
Are you opposed to others having fun?
A realistic element should be treated no different than an unrealistic one ... and be included only if it is fun (to the target audience).
Hence, if players don't like to walk ... put in a teleport and make up some mumbo jumbo (magic in fantasy games, adv tech in sci-fi games) to explain it.
The goal of games is fun (to its audience). Be real for realism sake is a non-starter.
Are we talking about trying to make a game that everyone likes by allowing everyone to by-pass any game mechanic they don't determine to be "fun". Sounds like a terrible game.
No one says it is easy to do ... but if successful, isn't a game that everyone likes .. is a GOOD thing?
Look at the success of the survival genre. Just a matter of time until the same gameplay mechanics make their way back to MMORPGs where most of them were first introduced.
"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
20 of them would play a hardcore mmorpg
80 of them would play a casual mmorpg
"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
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Now you seem to be arguing something completely different. I don't recall ever saying that realism which doesn't add to fun is a good thing. However I don't think you will ever find universal agreement on what is fun in games. What is just "boring walking" to you may be a major element adding to the immersion and fun of another player. Is there anything saying that your idea of fun is more valid than that person's?
Of course what is fun FOR ME may not be fun for others. However, devs can check if something is fun for a MAJORITY of their audience. Now you have find walking (with nothing else to do) fun, but the fact that devs make fast travel options indicate that a lot of their audience does not agree with you. But the point is this .. if enough people find some elements not-fun (realistic or not) such as slow travel, looking for NPCs, waiting for boat rides, down-time, it will be gone no matter how "realistic" you think it is.
As for the success of survival games, it is quite telling and should not be ignored. I definitely agree that we could very well see those mechanics make a return to the MMORPG genre.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
So the "tedium" in EQ came packaged with greater enjoyment at the end, thus the same rate of enjoyment per session, or averaged over several sessions.
This fact, that huge portions of the gamer market are children and are unaware, is the direct cause of the dumbing down of games, through the mechanism of profit.
Why bother with any min of tedium? Even a second of it will drag down the average. Do you need a math example to see that point?
Your core argument, "why bother with even a minute of tedium," rather perfectly highlights my core point from my first post. As I attempted to point out, different people (generally adults vs children) can obtain X enjoyment from fun of different lengths. This is why some people do drugs all their life and some save money for retirement until they are millionaires. Do they have different amounts of fun? I assert not.
As to raising the total enjoyment at every moment of play time, sure, this is possible. But there are so many different types of fun. I tend to view existing in another world as more fun than simple execution of logical neural pathways. Hence my preference for early EQ as opposed to Candy Crush or, these days, WoW.
Kids have all the time in the world to play, explore and learn game mechanics within MMOs. Whilst most adults don't. And let's get some thing straight, the mechanics are hardly hard to grasp in most MMOs.
I'm being challenged a lot more per play session in the newer MMOs than the older ones so I'm glad they're cutting out the parts that mainly just tested my patience, not my brains.
However, if the game is not designed for you, again, why does it need even a min of tedium?
Different games cater to different audience. And if walking is tedious for your audience, why even give them 10 second of it? There is no point.
EQ has many tedious part for many .. probably not you. Hence its design is no longer relevant to new games. But i do have to ask you .. will you play a game with lots of tedium if you have the choice of having fun every min?
I wouldn't.
"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
PvP is always a hell of a lot more challenging than PvE.
But each to their own, you would play BF4, which to me is just a keyboard bashing game, with 0 skill, instant respawn, and nothing. I would play Arma 3, where if you make one mistake, your 24 hour playing, just ended you with nothing, because one decided to sprint when they should of ball crawled.
Most people watch mindless entertain like action shows, or prime time tv. 1 percent watch only documentaries.
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
You stick to your mindless action shows, I'll stick to my documentaries. Both happy then.