I'd like to see raid bosses in a mmorpg where they don't just follow the exact same attack pattern flawlessly,
Play D3 then. The bosses (elite & champ) are randomized, and where you fight them are ALSO randomized.
Reread the post, and as you have been told numerous times: stay on topic.
Communication...
practice it.
Don't like my posts much, uh?...
Perhaps you've noticed I'm far from alone?
There's probably something to that...
Common denominator ring a bell?
I think the descussion about randomized attack AI might be a little over your head
Thanks for the insult.
I was specifically responding to Naruis' reply to Siveria's interest in seeing this in MMORPGs where he literally told him to just "play D3" then. This is something he does several times a day on these forums. It doesn't help move the discussion a long.
He did go on to explain how it could be applied to MMORPGs after the fact. Why didn't he just do that in the first place? Gee, I wonder why...
P.S. I played Darkfall for years so I do understand how that type of AI functions.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I was specifically responding to Naruis' reply to Siveria's interest in seeing this in MMORPGs where he literally told him to just "play D3" then. This is something he does several times a day on these forums. It doesn't help move the discussion a long.
He did go on to explain how it could be applied to MMORPGs after the fact. Why didn't he just do that in the first place? Gee, I wonder why...
P.S. I played Darkfall for years so I do understand how that type of AI functions.
yeah I fail to see the problem in that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
this is not true and its subject that really gets me ticked off.
1) Minecraft either had factories or it doesnt have factoires. me playing it doesnt change that 2) Micecraft either has Structural intergreity or it doesnt me playing it doesnt change that 3) Micecraft either has spaceships I can fly or it doesnt me playing it doesnt change that]
1) It has, and you can actually build them yourself, including electrical circuits, pistons, engines, physics, etc... 2) It does, but adapted to the game's settings. Nothing is eternal in MC, everything ages. 3) It doesn't fit the setting. MC has mounts, which fit the setting of the game.
so out of my small sample list (which i have more on that list if you like) only 1 is part of the game. Mods really dont count becuase the games I listed some of them have mods as well!
can you make objects? my objects I mean items that are clearly not just a block?
regarding space ships I think your evaulation is silly...super silly. doesnt even make sense. Nobody would force someone to build a space ship to fly to another planet anymore than someone would force you to build a working motherboard......
How can you say mods don't count if they contribute to the potential to give you the experience you are looking for?
But to say you can't count mods because other games have mods means what? That's a huge part of what Minecraft is and why it's so flexible. Another modded game has nothing to do with how you can mod Minecraft.
If you are asking about Minecraft becasue it may have the potential to offer you what you are looking for in a game, then mods have to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe you are just looking for a logical reason to discredit or exclude the game.
why?
because many of the games in question on my side of the arguement ALSO HAVE MODS
so: 1. we would eventually end up debating over which game has the better moddin community not which game has the better features. 2. many of these minecraft mods have features that are part of the CORE GAME in the games I am listing.
So its like this
I think game X has more features. No it doesnt because if you take game Y and add mods then game Y has as many features.
whaaaaaat? what universe does that become remotely fair?
The flaw in the argument is debating the game in the 1st place.
Either Minecraft can provide the desired experience or it can't If it can with mods, but not without and you write it off as "it can't" then all you have done is cheated yourself out of a potential experience you might enjoy.
The flaw in the argument is debating the game in the 1st place.
Either Minecraft can provide the desired experience or it can't If it can with mods, but not without and you write it off as "it can't" then all you have done is cheated yourself out of a potential experience you might enjoy.
yeah I dont think that is fair to the developers who create games with all those extra features to be described as having just as many features as a game that only has said features if mods are in place. Not fair to those developers at all. and I see it as gross minecraft fanboyism and it turns me off to minecraft even more than before.
These developers have put a lot of effort into these games to take what minecraft has done and to expand on it and by describing their efforts like you have is like shiiting on them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No argument, since this is not a debate as expressing a pov is quite different. I have nothing to prove. My self-esteem is more than safe. Speaking of imperfect perception, I'll make this clear in plain writing since you obviously failed to comprehend my initial explanation. I just don't care enough to have a debate about this. lol If you wish to try and understand why I say what I did. Read up on the research of Kintsch & Rawson on reading comprehension, then add a little Riccardo Manzotti to put it into perspective. With that, I bid you Adieu and wish you well on your quest of self-aggrandizement. You are well on your way.
This? Maybe something else? (Skimmed through and while interesting nothing said there was relevant to what I've described.)
Or was that just a backhanded attempt at insult? Seems the safer assumption, given you haven't really fielded any valid criticism of what I've been describing, and have actively stated you aren't trying to discuss the topic (which of course begs the question why you bothered posting in the first place.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No argument, since this is not a debate as expressing a pov is quite different. I have nothing to prove. My self-esteem is more than safe. Speaking of imperfect perception, I'll make this clear in plain writing since you obviously failed to comprehend my initial explanation. I just don't care enough to have a debate about this. lol If you wish to try and understand why I say what I did. Read up on the research of Kintsch & Rawson on reading comprehension, then add a little Riccardo Manzotti to put it into perspective. With that, I bid you Adieu and wish you well on your quest of self-aggrandizement. You are well on your way.
This? Maybe something else? (Skimmed through and while interesting nothing said there was relevant to what I've described.)
While he may have been referring to something else, you apparently didn't read what you linked very hard if that's the conclusion you came to.
Example.
"A model in the tradition of the CI model that focuses
on the situation level rather than the propositional textbase has been investigated by
Louwerse (2002). Similarly, Schmalhofer, McDaniel, and Keefe (2002) have extended
the CI model so that it explicitly accounts for the interaction of the propositional
level and the situation model level. One important fact to note about the process of
constructing situation models is that it is not restricted to the verbal domain. It frequently
involves imagery, emotions, and personal experiences."
While you may not entirely comprehend what that means, what is written is stating that in order to make a text that contains deeper meaning and value for the reader, you need to provide more than data to learn, but relevancy to the individual through prior knowledge, emotional connections, construction of imagery (imagination), and development of a shared/personal experience that creates deeper connections and understanding.
That's an example off page two of what you linked, with more showing up in the following 16 pages as they break it down.
It even ends on this point.
"Text comprehension is a complex process, requiring the involvement of many different
components, relying upon many different kinds of information, and yielding complex
mental representations."
"Almost all of the
extant research on text comprehension has focused on identifying and examining the
various component processes in isolation, which has gone a long way toward furthering
our understanding of how comprehension works. However, text comprehension is not
Comprehension 225
SSR12 11/27/04 10:54 AM Page 225
simply the sum of the activity of these various processes, but arises from their coordinated
operation as a system. "
That text you share quotes it's own studies on the matter, coming to the conclusion that a single form of or focus in engaging a reader (such as your focus on k-fun) is detrimental as a full system of comprehension and engagement is reliant on many forms. This applies to gaming as stated by the fact that play is definitely not limited by new experience for entertainment. Otherwise Nariu should have been bored with D3 after his first greater rift.
Thank you for sharing something that invalidates your point for us though I guess.
"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
Thank you for sharing something that invalidates your point for us though I guess.
First post something relevant before claiming you've invalidated my point:
My point is about entertainment motivations and their resulting decisions. (The factors that might motivate a family to visit or revisit a themepark.)
You're discussing a process which occurs after this decision, and therefore isn't relevant. (The paper is the functional equivalent of "how families travel to themeparks" which, while interesting, certainly isn't relevant to the discussion.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Do any of you actually play mmorpgs or do you just spew out whatever thought pops into your head? Almost every modern MMORPG has content that requires skill, dedication, and grind. Just because they dedicated some content to casual players doesn't mean you can't find the challenge you are looking for.
I'll use the last MMORPG I played Archeage. There is a 19 part quest to craft a fully upgrade dream ring. Even a non fully upgraded ring was coveted when I played. It required you to collect an item from the hardest dungeon boss in the game at the time, and only 1 person (out of 10) in the party could get it. Only one group on my server could reliably clear this boss for almost 4 months. Once you had this item you had to find an NPC that would randomly appear in cities around the world. There was no guide or help in game to find him. You were pretty much on your own. After this you had to sail to the middle of the ocean and farm difficult mobs underwater to collect an item that for some took days to find. This got you the first part of the ring that didn't even have stats on it, but allowed you to fight a difficult boss battle that was nearly impossible without it.
This is just one example, and I could list a dozen more. The problem is most people here don't know what they want, and just complain for the sake of complaining. Someone could release exactly what you ask for with polished AAA graphics and most of you would still call it too casual. This jaded circle jerk of a website is really a lost cause at this point.
Do any of you actually play mmorpgs or do you just spew out whatever thought pops into your head? Almost every modern MMORPG has content that requires skill, dedication, and grind. Just because they dedicated some content to casual players doesn't mean you can't find the challenge you are looking for.
I'll use the last MMORPG I played Archeage. There is a 19 part quest to craft a fully upgrade dream ring. Even a non fully upgraded ring was coveted when I played. It required you to collect an item from the hardest dungeon boss in the game at the time, and only 1 person (out of 10) in the party could get it. Only one group on my server could reliably clear this boss for almost 4 months. Once you had this item you had to find an NPC that would randomly appear in cities around the world. There was no guide or help in game to find him. You were pretty much on your own. After this you had to sail to the middle of the ocean and farm difficult mobs underwater to collect an item that for some took days to find. This got you the first part of the ring that didn't even have stats on it, but allowed you to fight a difficult boss battle that was nearly impossible without it.
This is just one example, and I could list a dozen more. The problem is most people here don't know what they want, and just complain for the sake of complaining. Someone could release exactly what you ask for with polished AAA graphics and most of you would still call it too casual. This jaded circle jerk of a website is really a lost cause at this point.
That's cool. This is the kind of stuff that makes MMOs good and fun. Archeage is pay 2 win though.
Thank you for sharing something that invalidates your point for us though I guess.
First post something relevant before claiming you've invalidated my point:
My point is about entertainment motivations and their resulting decisions. (The factors that might motivate a family to visit or revisit a themepark.)
You're discussing a process which occurs after this decision, and therefore isn't relevant. (The paper is the functional equivalent of "how families travel to themeparks" which, while interesting, certainly isn't relevant to the discussion.)
If that's truly your point then you have said nothing on that matter. You argument thus-far was based around the notion of k-fun, which is a factor that a person experiences during an activity, it is not a factor that motivates an individual to trying an activity.
So if you wish to claim that, that you haven't posted a single relevant thing yet.
As for your second point, I'm discussing the process that takes place during the course of an experience. The paper is much more akin to "why people like being at a themepark" than anything else, but you're not likely to acknowledge that since it invalidates your claims about k-fun.
If you want to claim "entertainment motivations" as the means by which a person has fun or becomes involved/engrossed in a form of media, then that paper is rather directly applicable alongside the points previously made, as the counterpoint thus-far has been about the types of "fun" and entertainment that actually drives any given media's success over time. Your post isn't even coherent, as you claim something is "after the decision" and then give an analogy of it being the process of arriving to the experience (before).
You want relevant? Then go back and read the posts where your claims were dissected in their entirety and pointed out all the inaccuracies and faults.
Just because you don't want to acknowledge when you're wrong does not make the facts correcting you irrelevant. [mod edit]
"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
Do any of you actually play mmorpgs or do you just spew out whatever thought pops into your head? Almost every modern MMORPG has content that requires skill, dedication, and grind. Just because they dedicated some content to casual players doesn't mean you can't find the challenge you are looking for.
I'll use the last MMORPG I played Archeage. There is a 19 part quest to craft a fully upgrade dream ring. Even a non fully upgraded ring was coveted when I played. It required you to collect an item from the hardest dungeon boss in the game at the time, and only 1 person (out of 10) in the party could get it. Only one group on my server could reliably clear this boss for almost 4 months. Once you had this item you had to find an NPC that would randomly appear in cities around the world. There was no guide or help in game to find him. You were pretty much on your own. After this you had to sail to the middle of the ocean and farm difficult mobs underwater to collect an item that for some took days to find. This got you the first part of the ring that didn't even have stats on it, but allowed you to fight a difficult boss battle that was nearly impossible without it.
This is just one example, and I could list a dozen more. The problem is most people here don't know what they want, and just complain for the sake of complaining. Someone could release exactly what you ask for with polished AAA graphics and most of you would still call it too casual. This jaded circle jerk of a website is really a lost cause at this point.
That's cool. This is the kind of stuff that makes MMOs good and fun. Archeage is pay 2 win though.
Almost every modern MMO has content like this, you're just focused on the content that isn't designed for you. So what if someone can run some easy quest or dungeon and get crappy endgame gear? Just ignore it, and focus on the stuff that you enjoy. When I played Tera, I spent a large chunk of my leveling just killing BAMs by myself. They were tough, they required skill, and some took 10-15 minutes to kill until you gained a few levels off of them. All this while trying to avoid getting ganked by a player passing through. The endgame had some dungeons that required ridiculous focus and coordination to not avoid wiping on. I enjoyed this. Some nights I wanted to rip out my hair after spending hours in a dungeon only to wipe on the finale boss for the 10th time, but it was challenging. I could have gotten caught up on the the linear approach to leveling, or the boring PvP battlegrounds but I found content that I liked.
It's the same with Archeage. I could have gotten pissed off at the pay2win cash shop, or the imbalanced PvP, but I focused on exploration, pirating, and group content that even the cash shop whales couldn't do without my groups help.
Do any of you actually play mmorpgs or do you just spew out whatever thought pops into your head? Almost every modern MMORPG has content that requires skill, dedication, and grind. Just because they dedicated some content to casual players doesn't mean you can't find the challenge you are looking for.
I'll use the last MMORPG I played Archeage. There is a 19 part quest to craft a fully upgrade dream ring. Even a non fully upgraded ring was coveted when I played. It required you to collect an item from the hardest dungeon boss in the game at the time, and only 1 person (out of 10) in the party could get it. Only one group on my server could reliably clear this boss for almost 4 months. Once you had this item you had to find an NPC that would randomly appear in cities around the world. There was no guide or help in game to find him. You were pretty much on your own. After this you had to sail to the middle of the ocean and farm difficult mobs underwater to collect an item that for some took days to find. This got you the first part of the ring that didn't even have stats on it, but allowed you to fight a difficult boss battle that was nearly impossible without it.
This is just one example, and I could list a dozen more. The problem is most people here don't know what they want, and just complain for the sake of complaining. Someone could release exactly what you ask for with polished AAA graphics and most of you would still call it too casual. This jaded circle jerk of a website is really a lost cause at this point.
That's cool. This is the kind of stuff that makes MMOs good and fun. Archeage is pay 2 win though.
Almost every modern MMO has content like this, you're just focused on the content that isn't designed for you. So what if someone can run some easy quest or dungeon and get crappy endgame gear? Just ignore it, and focus on the stuff that you enjoy. When I played Tera, I spent a large chunk of my leveling just killing BAMs by myself. They were tough, they required skill, and some took 10-15 minutes to kill until you gained a few levels off of them. All this while trying to avoid getting ganked by a player passing through. The endgame had some dungeons that required ridiculous focus and coordination to not avoid wiping on. I enjoyed this. Some nights I wanted to rip out my hair after spending hours in a dungeon only to wipe on the finale boss for the 10th time, but it was challenging. I could have gotten caught up on the the linear approach to leveling, or the boring PvP battlegrounds but I found content that I liked.
It's the same with Archeage. I could have gotten pissed off at the pay2win cash shop, or the imbalanced PvP, but I focused on exploration, pirating, and group content that even the cash shop whales couldn't do without my groups help.
I want to pvp, I want to test my mastery of my mechanics against other people. Unfortunately, if I don't insert coinage into the slot, I lose to anyone who does.
I want to pvp, I want to test my mastery of my mechanics against other people. Unfortunately, if I don't insert coinage into the slot, I lose to anyone who does.
Same thing happens to trade skills or any other aspect of playing if enough coin slots are involved.
There can be minimal "coin slot" activity that doesn't affect play very much, but that rarely lasts when a (new?) team leader is under pressure to perform.
I want to pvp, I want to test my mastery of my mechanics against other people. Unfortunately, if I don't insert coinage into the slot, I lose to anyone who does.
Same thing happens to trade skills or any other aspect of playing if enough coin slots are involved.
There can be minimal "coin slot" activity that doesn't affect play very much, but that rarely lasts when a (new?) team leader is under pressure to perform.
This is why the 15 dollar a month model worked so well. Instead of scraping hundreds of dollars out of a small audience who pay for a gazillion free loader trolls, everyone had to pay something, and there was no coin slot maneuvers.
If that's truly your point then you have said nothing on that matter. You argument thus-far was based around the notion of k-fun, which is a factor that a person experiences during an activity, it is not a factor that motivates an individual to trying an activity.
So if you wish to claim that, that you haven't posted a single relevant thing yet.
As for your second point, I'm discussing the process that takes place during the course of an experience. The paper is much more akin to "why people like being at a themepark" than anything else, but you're not likely to acknowledge that since it invalidates your claims about k-fun.
If you want to claim "entertainment motivations" as the means by which a person has fun or becomes involved/engrossed in a form of media, then that paper is rather directly applicable alongside the points previously made, as the counterpoint thus-far has been about the types of "fun" and entertainment that actually drives any given media's success over time. Your post isn't even coherent, as you claim something is "after the decision" and then give an analogy of it being the process of arriving to the experience (before).
You want relevant? Then go back and read the posts where your claims were dissected in their entirety and pointed out all the inaccuracies and faults.
Just because you don't want to acknowledge when you're wrong does not make the facts correcting you irrelevant. [mod edit]
From the beginning I've described the most common motivating factor: learning. I pointed out that any static product will inevitably stop teaching you enough new things to feel worth it, at which point you're basically done with it. So the decision of whether to revisit entertainment has been implicit from the start.
Yes, I know you're discussing a process that takes place during the experience. No, it's still not relevant.
A poster in another thread recently described the process and most of its factors completely independent from this thread: "So, let's look at some of my older favorite games, like Majora's Mask, OoT (played it so many times I can't forget it), SM64, SMSS, Twilight Princess and so on. if I take a long enough break that I forget a lot of the solutions, and forget all the minor details in the story, I can have a blast! But, once I play them, they're just not fun anymore, since I know what's going to happen."
Are you able to understand that a paper detailing how light hits that poster's eye from the monitor, and is eventually understood by his brain, would not be at all relevant to the concept he's describing?
Because that's exactly what's happened here with books.
I'm not going to read your other posts. I dipped my foot in the water for these last 2 posts of yours, and discovered it was typical of your behavior. Why should I expect any different from those other posts?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
From the beginning I've described the most common motivating factor:
And there was a long dialogue on that matter pointing out that that is not the most common motivator, but one early component of many factors, some of which are what has been brought up addressing the reason for displayed interest in long-term play, re-reading/watching content, etc.
You dismissing that there are many forms of fun beyond k-fun and that some of them bear just as much if not more relevance pending the game/media type in question, really doesn't matter. You don't want to learn or be correct, not my problem, other people can see these corrections and be educated properly even if you refuse.
For example, taken right out of that person's post you shared...
"Now, I played WoW for 10 years and loved it, and then Draenor came out and ruined everything for me. No, it wasn't super hard, but it was fun. The classes were interesting, the lore was fantastic, and the world felt alive."
This right here is the counterpoint. Playing the same game for ten years, he went well past the point of knowing all the general content. If learning was the only reason he enjoyed that game he would have been done with it a long time ago. Instead, he stuck with it for other reasons that entertained him. And this is exactly where you're failing. That quote is from the very same paragraph that you cherry picked your quote from.
And his post supports my point further is I simply take the sentence that follows the part you quoted.
"Now, let's look at a more modern game that I picked up recently, and got quickly bored of: Fallout 4. Oh sure, it was fun for a little while, but after maybe 20 hours, I just got so tired of it that I couldn't play anymore."
This statement gives a bit of clarification of the problem. When all the depth of the game comes simply from experiencing something new, then it remains fun for a remarkably short amount of time.
Which is exactly where his Wildstar analogy was going too, as he claimed it was way too samey and offered nothing else aside from "boring combat". There was no "world" elements or extended value there for him.
Which again cycles back to the paper you want to dismiss. That paper was detailing that there are many means of a person comprehending and being engaged by a story, and that multiple methods are necessary to properly engross a reader. This goes very directly against your continued persistence that there is a singular holy grail of entertainment. Just because you don't like that fact, doesn't make it irrelevant.
You don't have to read my other posts as it's obvious you are putting your opinions well before any fact. I don't care about your opinions and you can have as many of those as you wish. I only care about information, and will correct others when they post something objectively false. If you can't accept that, you don't have to. Other people can read these corrections and learn from them all the same.
Post edited by Deivos on
"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
I want to pvp, I want to test my mastery of my mechanics against other people. Unfortunately, if I don't insert coinage into the slot, I lose to anyone who does.
Same thing happens to trade skills or any other aspect of playing if enough coin slots are involved.
There can be minimal "coin slot" activity that doesn't affect play very much, but that rarely lasts when a (new?) team leader is under pressure to perform.
This is why the 15 dollar a month model worked so well. Instead of scraping hundreds of dollars out of a small audience who pay for a gazillion free loader trolls, everyone had to pay something, and there was no coin slot maneuvers.
Deivos is right. I'm sorry but you are taking one guys hypothesis (not even theory) and using that as the rule, even though the guy (koster) himself stated that his theory was only one type of fun, or reason for fun.
One type. Therefore the guy you're quoting doesn't even agree with you.
He is a game designer. Not a psychologist, or psychiatrist or specialist of brain, cognitive or behavior development. He is a game designer and he talks about one possible reason or why people may find something fun. Anything he states regarding this topic should be taken with a massive truckload of salt and only given passing credence because he has developed some successful games.
You are stating that pattern mastery is the most common (no evidence of this at all) reason for fun and ignoring all the other possible factors.
That is completely ridiculous, thoroughly illogical and again Koster doesn't even agree with you as he stated it is one type.
Lets put it simply. Pattern mastery may (not is but only may) be one factor (thats it just one factor) among a great many factors in explaining why people find various things fun. Thats it, that is all you have to go on.
This talk about evolutionary adaptions regarding this are very hypothetical, they may be reasonable, they may be full of crap. I don't know. I've taken many many courses on cognitive development and theories of learning, nothing like this ever came up. Neither did evolutionary adaptations to explain this either. I will readily admit I have never taken a course on theories of fun. They may exist, they may not. There may be some decent research on it. There may not. That research is certainly not definitive in any way, shape or form. A game designer having a theory of this is a very very low, if anything at all, source of evidence.
Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Deivos is right. I'm sorry but you are taking one guys hypothesis (not even theory) and using that as the rule, even though the guy (koster) himself stated that his theory was only one type of fun, or reason for fun.
One type. Therefore the guy you're quoting doesn't even agree with you.
He is a game designer. Not a psychologist, or psychiatrist or specialist of brain, cognitive or behavior development. He is a game designer and he talks about one possible reason or why people may find something fun. Anything he states regarding this topic should be taken with a massive truckload of salt and only given passing credence because he has developed some successful games.
You are stating that pattern mastery is the most common (no evidence of this at all) reason for fun and ignoring all the other possible factors.
That is completely ridiculous, thoroughly illogical and again Koster doesn't even agree with you as he stated it is one type.
Lets put it simply. Pattern mastery may (not is but only may) be one factor (thats it just one factor) among a great many factors in explaining why people find various things fun. Thats it, that is all you have to go on.
This talk about evolutionary adaptions regarding this are very hypothetical, they may be reasonable, they may be full of crap. I don't know. I've taken many many courses on cognitive development and theories of learning, nothing like this ever came up. Neither did evolutionary adaptations to explain this either. I will readily admit I have never taken a course on theories of fun. They may exist, they may not. There may be some decent research on it. There may not. That research is certainly not definitive in any way, shape or form. A game designer having a theory of this is a very very low, if anything at all, source of evidence.
What did I just read. O.O
Pattery mastery, seems like you'd need constantly rotating patterns to master to keep it fun.
Well, there are a lot of things which constitutes pattern mastery. All of the game mechanics end up presenting some aspect which needs to be learned and understood, and the narrative and any emergent gameplay elements are similarly components which should be presenting something to learn, even if the "mastery" of such is effectively just witnessing it and remembering it later.
If you're going to focus on that for game design, then you're probably still delivering much shorter/compact titles. That's fine for mobile games and other things that are short bursts of entertainment. But that very simply does not work for an MMO.
In part, the need to change components of the game and re-balance things every so often is an attempt at refreshing pattern mastery, forcing players to re-learn their classes and abilities. If that's all that's happening though, you can trust things to get pretty stale pretty fast.
That's the thing with alternative forms of entertainment and where they fit into things. In Koster's ten year anniversary keynote about his book "A Theory of Fun" he admitted to this fact that his focus on pattern mastery in the book was to the neglect of many other forms of entertainment and engagement. It was the part he talked about and dwelled on because it was the component he was familiar with.
In the ten years later dialogue he made the statement "dopamine can release for richly interpretable situations." It was a revelation that his original definition of fun as an act of dopamine release related to learning was not all that proper. Dopamine as a reaction engaging a person's entertainment/catharsis could actually happen for a variety of reasons that people actively sought out and were equally valid avenues for game design. Practice, story, meditation, comfort, socialization, etc. This extends as far as him re-classing and naming differing types of games and engagement, and that game design and the gamification he espouses through k-fun is only one component of a few at least that need to be woven together to make a solid user experience.
But some people would rather aim for validation of opinion and stick to something someone wrote 12 years ago, even though the very same one that wrote the book has turned around since then to say quite more on the matter pointing at many forms of fun being integral.
Just end up having to consider what factors are most integral in your life for stable health and happiness and consider how games can engage and fit into that.
"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
Deivos is right. I'm sorry but you are taking one guys hypothesis (not even theory) and using that as the rule, even though the guy (koster) himself stated that his theory was only one type of fun, or reason for fun.
One type. Therefore the guy you're quoting doesn't even agree with you.
He is a game designer. Not a psychologist, or psychiatrist or specialist of brain, cognitive or behavior development. He is a game designer and he talks about one possible reason or why people may find something fun. Anything he states regarding this topic should be taken with a massive truckload of salt and only given passing credence because he has developed some successful games.
You are stating that pattern mastery is the most common (no evidence of this at all) reason for fun and ignoring all the other possible factors.
That is completely ridiculous, thoroughly illogical and again Koster doesn't even agree with you as he stated it is one type.
Lets put it simply. Pattern mastery may (not is but only may) be one factor (thats it just one factor) among a great many factors in explaining why people find various things fun. Thats it, that is all you have to go on.
This talk about evolutionary adaptions regarding this are very hypothetical, they may be reasonable, they may be full of crap. I don't know. I've taken many many courses on cognitive development and theories of learning, nothing like this ever came up. Neither did evolutionary adaptations to explain this either. I will readily admit I have never taken a course on theories of fun. They may exist, they may not. There may be some decent research on it. There may not. That research is certainly not definitive in any way, shape or form. A game designer having a theory of this is a very very low, if anything at all, source of evidence.
A game releases a new area with lots of content. What do you think happens?
Do most players stick with the old content, because their primary motivator is using the game as a relaxation activity (where new content isn't necessary)?
Or would you expect the majority to flood to the new area, possibly logging in for the first time in weeks or years, in order to immediately begin unraveling the new mysteries?
When new content comes out, you will still find some players in the older areas. This handful of players is motivated more by relaxation than pattern-seeking (at least in that particular moment.)
However the vast majority are going to rush to the new thing, because a fresh pattern is always the most interesting to interact with and figure out. It's the heart of gaming.
It also explains players' tendency to game-hop, as each new game is a fresh pattern.
It also explains players' dislike of too-similar clones, as if the pattern is an old pattern in fresh patterns' clothing it's sort of a betrayal to the player and fails to provide the same fun.
Pattern mastery is a very broad concept:
a player who enjoys exploring is mastering (knowing) the game terrain.
a player who enjoys puzzles is mastering those puzzles.
a player who enjoys combat is mastering the combat puzzle.
a player who enjoys crafting is mastering that game system.
a player who enjoys story is mastering those mysteries.
a player who enjoys socializing is mastering social skills.
So the same root cause applies to a huge breadth of the core reasons players play games.
How do you go from "Axehilt says pattern mastery is the most common way games are fun" to "Koster says this isn't the only way games are fun, and so he doesn't agree with Axehilt"?
You do realize that the reason I call them it "the most common way games are fun" is to implicitly acknowledge there are other types of fun, right? Even before Koster himself mentioned it publicly, I had realized there were more types of fun, but the only other big one is what I call "relaxation activities". But how on earth did you take those two statements and reach the assumption that he disagrees with me when we're both saying the same thing?
But is gaming dominated by relaxation games like FarmVille? Or is dominated by all the other pattern-intensive genres (MOBA, FPS, MMORPG, etc)? It's less black-and-white than that, since if you're repetitively farming the same mobs in WOW your motivation is relaxation rather than game patterns. But that takes us back to the original example up top which shows us just how common and prevalent pattern-mastery fun is, because when that game releases that new area nearly all the players are going to show up there because that's the most interesting part of gaming to the majority of players. Not all players. Nearly all.
So hopefully that sheds light on why this actually is the most common way games are enjoyed by players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I hate the use of stories in games and I recall the first time I experienced it and had that 'what the hell are they doing' feeling.
it was one of the first D&D computer games made. Was it an electronic compainion to D&D as I had expected? like a tool to make the existing framework eaiser and/or more compelling? no it was a stand alone campaign...
I said to myself 'well someone will figure it out someday'
nope. The only time anyone came close was Neverwinter nights 1 in 2002
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I hate the use of stories in games and I recall the first time I experienced it and had that 'what the hell are they doing' feeling.
it was one of the first D&D computer games made. Was it an electronic compainion to D&D as I had expected? like a tool to make the existing framework eaiser and/or more compelling? no it was a stand alone campaign...
I said to myself 'well someone will figure it out someday'
nope. The only time anyone came close was Neverwinter nights 1 in 2002
I believe the main problem with story is that there are a lot of different tastes. I may not like the story that someone else might and vise versa.
Other issues I can think of are there is too much pointless story. If I wanted to I could probably spend a few hours a day reading quest text that really has little purpose other than isolated minor stories that are often long winded and unneeded.
To me removing quests is part of the answer in a multiplayer experience. There has to be other ways to keep people entertained. Quests often segregate the population by making it hard to group unless you intentionally go looking for one by queuing up. This also limits creativity as two people might find a way to tackle something intended for five by combining certain class skills.
I hate the use of stories in games and I recall the first time I experienced it and had that 'what the hell are they doing' feeling.
it was one of the first D&D computer games made. Was it an electronic compainion to D&D as I had expected? like a tool to make the existing framework eaiser and/or more compelling? no it was a stand alone campaign...
I said to myself 'well someone will figure it out someday'
nope. The only time anyone came close was Neverwinter nights 1 in 2002
I believe the main problem with story is that there are a lot of different tastes. I may not like the story that someone else might and vise versa.
Other issues I can think of are there is too much pointless story. If I wanted to I could probably spend a few hours a day reading quest text that really has little purpose other than isolated minor stories that are often long winded and unneeded.
To me removing quests is part of the answer in a multiplayer experience. There has to be other ways to keep people entertained. Quests often segregate the population by making it hard to group unless you intentionally go looking for one by queuing up. This also limits creativity as two people might find a way to tackle something intended for five by combining certain class skills.
I think its really hard to tell a good and compelling story while asking the 'listener' of the story to take a break and do something every 5 mins. I dont think anything worth saying can be said with that level of distraction. That is my main theory anyway.
I also tend to point out to people that 'stories in games' have always been possible its not just because of the computer its now possible so the question I have for them is why is it that stories havent been in games for thousands of year prior to this snap shot in time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I hate the use of stories in games and I recall the first time I experienced it and had that 'what the hell are they doing' feeling.
it was one of the first D&D computer games made. Was it an electronic compainion to D&D as I had expected? like a tool to make the existing framework eaiser and/or more compelling? no it was a stand alone campaign...
I said to myself 'well someone will figure it out someday'
nope. The only time anyone came close was Neverwinter nights 1 in 2002
I believe the main problem with story is that there are a lot of different tastes. I may not like the story that someone else might and vise versa.
Other issues I can think of are there is too much pointless story. If I wanted to I could probably spend a few hours a day reading quest text that really has little purpose other than isolated minor stories that are often long winded and unneeded.
To me removing quests is part of the answer in a multiplayer experience. There has to be other ways to keep people entertained. Quests often segregate the population by making it hard to group unless you intentionally go looking for one by queuing up. This also limits creativity as two people might find a way to tackle something intended for five by combining certain class skills.
I think its really hard to tell a good and compelling story while asking the 'listener' of the story to take a break and do something every 5 mins. I dont think anything worth saying can be said with that level of distraction. That is my main theory anyway.
I also tend to point out to people that 'stories in games' have always been possible its not just because of the computer its now possible so the question I have for them is why is it that stories havent been in games for thousands of year prior to this snap shot in time
That may be part of my issue. I don't feel like I have time to sit there and read through all the text. I actually do have the time, but even so I just want to go out and do something instead of sitting still reading. I've always been a hands on type of person with learning. I learn some things from reading, but I prefer to learn by using when possible.
Comments
I was specifically responding to Naruis' reply to Siveria's interest in seeing this in MMORPGs where he literally told him to just "play D3" then. This is something he does several times a day on these forums. It doesn't help move the discussion a long.
He did go on to explain how it could be applied to MMORPGs after the fact. Why didn't he just do that in the first place? Gee, I wonder why...
P.S. I played Darkfall for years so I do understand how that type of AI functions.
"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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Either Minecraft can provide the desired experience or it can't If it can with mods, but not without and you write it off as "it can't" then all you have done is cheated yourself out of a potential experience you might enjoy.
These developers have put a lot of effort into these games to take what minecraft has done and to expand on it and by describing their efforts like you have is like shiiting on them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Or was that just a backhanded attempt at insult? Seems the safer assumption, given you haven't really fielded any valid criticism of what I've been describing, and have actively stated you aren't trying to discuss the topic (which of course begs the question why you bothered posting in the first place.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Example.
"A model in the tradition of the CI model that focuses on the situation level rather than the propositional textbase has been investigated by Louwerse (2002). Similarly, Schmalhofer, McDaniel, and Keefe (2002) have extended the CI model so that it explicitly accounts for the interaction of the propositional level and the situation model level. One important fact to note about the process of constructing situation models is that it is not restricted to the verbal domain. It frequently involves imagery, emotions, and personal experiences."
While you may not entirely comprehend what that means, what is written is stating that in order to make a text that contains deeper meaning and value for the reader, you need to provide more than data to learn, but relevancy to the individual through prior knowledge, emotional connections, construction of imagery (imagination), and development of a shared/personal experience that creates deeper connections and understanding.
That's an example off page two of what you linked, with more showing up in the following 16 pages as they break it down.
It even ends on this point.
"Text comprehension is a complex process, requiring the involvement of many different components, relying upon many different kinds of information, and yielding complex mental representations."
"Almost all of the extant research on text comprehension has focused on identifying and examining the various component processes in isolation, which has gone a long way toward furthering our understanding of how comprehension works. However, text comprehension is not Comprehension 225 SSR12 11/27/04 10:54 AM Page 225 simply the sum of the activity of these various processes, but arises from their coordinated operation as a system. "
That text you share quotes it's own studies on the matter, coming to the conclusion that a single form of or focus in engaging a reader (such as your focus on k-fun) is detrimental as a full system of comprehension and engagement is reliant on many forms. This applies to gaming as stated by the fact that play is definitely not limited by new experience for entertainment. Otherwise Nariu should have been bored with D3 after his first greater rift.
Thank you for sharing something that invalidates your point for us though I guess.
"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
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'll use the last MMORPG I played Archeage. There is a 19 part quest to craft a fully upgrade dream ring. Even a non fully upgraded ring was coveted when I played. It required you to collect an item from the hardest dungeon boss in the game at the time, and only 1 person (out of 10) in the party could get it. Only one group on my server could reliably clear this boss for almost 4 months. Once you had this item you had to find an NPC that would randomly appear in cities around the world. There was no guide or help in game to find him. You were pretty much on your own. After this you had to sail to the middle of the ocean and farm difficult mobs underwater to collect an item that for some took days to find. This got you the first part of the ring that didn't even have stats on it, but allowed you to fight a difficult boss battle that was nearly impossible without it.
This is just one example, and I could list a dozen more. The problem is most people here don't know what they want, and just complain for the sake of complaining. Someone could release exactly what you ask for with polished AAA graphics and most of you would still call it too casual. This jaded circle jerk of a website is really a lost cause at this point.
So if you wish to claim that, that you haven't posted a single relevant thing yet.
As for your second point, I'm discussing the process that takes place during the course of an experience. The paper is much more akin to "why people like being at a themepark" than anything else, but you're not likely to acknowledge that since it invalidates your claims about k-fun.
If you want to claim "entertainment motivations" as the means by which a person has fun or becomes involved/engrossed in a form of media, then that paper is rather directly applicable alongside the points previously made, as the counterpoint thus-far has been about the types of "fun" and entertainment that actually drives any given media's success over time.
Your post isn't even coherent, as you claim something is "after the decision" and then give an analogy of it being the process of arriving to the experience (before).
You want relevant? Then go back and read the posts where your claims were dissected in their entirety and pointed out all the inaccuracies and faults.
Just because you don't want to acknowledge when you're wrong does not make the facts correcting you irrelevant. [mod edit]
"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
It's the same with Archeage. I could have gotten pissed off at the pay2win cash shop, or the imbalanced PvP, but I focused on exploration, pirating, and group content that even the cash shop whales couldn't do without my groups help.
There can be minimal "coin slot" activity that doesn't affect play very much, but that rarely lasts when a (new?) team leader is under pressure to perform.
Once upon a time....
Yes, I know you're discussing a process that takes place during the experience. No, it's still not relevant.
A poster in another thread recently described the process and most of its factors completely independent from this thread: "So, let's look at some of my older favorite games, like Majora's Mask, OoT (played it so many times I can't forget it), SM64, SMSS, Twilight Princess and so on. if I take a long enough break that I forget a lot of the solutions, and forget all the minor details in the story, I can have a blast! But, once I play them, they're just not fun anymore, since I know what's going to happen."
Are you able to understand that a paper detailing how light hits that poster's eye from the monitor, and is eventually understood by his brain, would not be at all relevant to the concept he's describing?
Because that's exactly what's happened here with books.
I'm not going to read your other posts. I dipped my foot in the water for these last 2 posts of yours, and discovered it was typical of your behavior. Why should I expect any different from those other posts?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You dismissing that there are many forms of fun beyond k-fun and that some of them bear just as much if not more relevance pending the game/media type in question, really doesn't matter. You don't want to learn or be correct, not my problem, other people can see these corrections and be educated properly even if you refuse.
For example, taken right out of that person's post you shared...
"Now, I played WoW for 10 years and loved it, and then Draenor came out and ruined everything for me. No, it wasn't super hard, but it was fun. The classes were interesting, the lore was fantastic, and the world felt alive."
This right here is the counterpoint. Playing the same game for ten years, he went well past the point of knowing all the general content. If learning was the only reason he enjoyed that game he would have been done with it a long time ago. Instead, he stuck with it for other reasons that entertained him. And this is exactly where you're failing. That quote is from the very same paragraph that you cherry picked your quote from.
And his post supports my point further is I simply take the sentence that follows the part you quoted.
"Now, let's look at a more modern game that I picked up recently, and got quickly bored of: Fallout 4. Oh sure, it was fun for a little while, but after maybe 20 hours, I just got so tired of it that I couldn't play anymore."
This statement gives a bit of clarification of the problem. When all the depth of the game comes simply from experiencing something new, then it remains fun for a remarkably short amount of time.
Which is exactly where his Wildstar analogy was going too, as he claimed it was way too samey and offered nothing else aside from "boring combat". There was no "world" elements or extended value there for him.
Which again cycles back to the paper you want to dismiss. That paper was detailing that there are many means of a person comprehending and being engaged by a story, and that multiple methods are necessary to properly engross a reader. This goes very directly against your continued persistence that there is a singular holy grail of entertainment. Just because you don't like that fact, doesn't make it irrelevant.
You don't have to read my other posts as it's obvious you are putting your opinions well before any fact. I don't care about your opinions and you can have as many of those as you wish. I only care about information, and will correct others when they post something objectively false. If you can't accept that, you don't have to. Other people can read these corrections and learn from them all the same.
"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
Once upon a time....
One type. Therefore the guy you're quoting doesn't even agree with you.
He is a game designer. Not a psychologist, or psychiatrist or specialist of brain, cognitive or behavior development. He is a game designer and he talks about one possible reason or why people may find something fun. Anything he states regarding this topic should be taken with a massive truckload of salt and only given passing credence because he has developed some successful games.
You are stating that pattern mastery is the most common (no evidence of this at all) reason for fun and ignoring all the other possible factors.
That is completely ridiculous, thoroughly illogical and again Koster doesn't even agree with you as he stated it is one type.
Lets put it simply. Pattern mastery may (not is but only may) be one factor (thats it just one factor) among a great many factors in explaining why people find various things fun. Thats it, that is all you have to go on.
This talk about evolutionary adaptions regarding this are very hypothetical, they may be reasonable, they may be full of crap. I don't know. I've taken many many courses on cognitive development and theories of learning, nothing like this ever came up. Neither did evolutionary adaptations to explain this either. I will readily admit I have never taken a course on theories of fun. They may exist, they may not. There may be some decent research on it. There may not. That research is certainly not definitive in any way, shape or form. A game designer having a theory of this is a very very low, if anything at all, source of evidence.
Pattery mastery, seems like you'd need constantly rotating patterns to master to keep it fun.
If you're going to focus on that for game design, then you're probably still delivering much shorter/compact titles. That's fine for mobile games and other things that are short bursts of entertainment. But that very simply does not work for an MMO.
In part, the need to change components of the game and re-balance things every so often is an attempt at refreshing pattern mastery, forcing players to re-learn their classes and abilities. If that's all that's happening though, you can trust things to get pretty stale pretty fast.
That's the thing with alternative forms of entertainment and where they fit into things. In Koster's ten year anniversary keynote about his book "A Theory of Fun" he admitted to this fact that his focus on pattern mastery in the book was to the neglect of many other forms of entertainment and engagement. It was the part he talked about and dwelled on because it was the component he was familiar with.
In the ten years later dialogue he made the statement "dopamine can release for richly interpretable situations." It was a revelation that his original definition of fun as an act of dopamine release related to learning was not all that proper. Dopamine as a reaction engaging a person's entertainment/catharsis could actually happen for a variety of reasons that people actively sought out and were equally valid avenues for game design. Practice, story, meditation, comfort, socialization, etc. This extends as far as him re-classing and naming differing types of games and engagement, and that game design and the gamification he espouses through k-fun is only one component of a few at least that need to be woven together to make a solid user experience.
But some people would rather aim for validation of opinion and stick to something someone wrote 12 years ago, even though the very same one that wrote the book has turned around since then to say quite more on the matter pointing at many forms of fun being integral.
Just end up having to consider what factors are most integral in your life for stable health and happiness and consider how games can engage and fit into that.
"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
- Do most players stick with the old content, because their primary motivator is using the game as a relaxation activity (where new content isn't necessary)?
- Or would you expect the majority to flood to the new area, possibly logging in for the first time in weeks or years, in order to immediately begin unraveling the new mysteries?
When new content comes out, you will still find some players in the older areas. This handful of players is motivated more by relaxation than pattern-seeking (at least in that particular moment.)However the vast majority are going to rush to the new thing, because a fresh pattern is always the most interesting to interact with and figure out. It's the heart of gaming.
It also explains players' tendency to game-hop, as each new game is a fresh pattern.
It also explains players' dislike of too-similar clones, as if the pattern is an old pattern in fresh patterns' clothing it's sort of a betrayal to the player and fails to provide the same fun.
Pattern mastery is a very broad concept:
- a player who enjoys exploring is mastering (knowing) the game terrain.
- a player who enjoys puzzles is mastering those puzzles.
- a player who enjoys combat is mastering the combat puzzle.
- a player who enjoys crafting is mastering that game system.
- a player who enjoys story is mastering those mysteries.
- a player who enjoys socializing is mastering social skills.
So the same root cause applies to a huge breadth of the core reasons players play games.How do you go from "Axehilt says pattern mastery is the most common way games are fun"
to "Koster says this isn't the only way games are fun, and so he doesn't agree with Axehilt"?
You do realize that the reason I call them it "the most common way games are fun" is to implicitly acknowledge there are other types of fun, right? Even before Koster himself mentioned it publicly, I had realized there were more types of fun, but the only other big one is what I call "relaxation activities". But how on earth did you take those two statements and reach the assumption that he disagrees with me when we're both saying the same thing?
But is gaming dominated by relaxation games like FarmVille? Or is dominated by all the other pattern-intensive genres (MOBA, FPS, MMORPG, etc)? It's less black-and-white than that, since if you're repetitively farming the same mobs in WOW your motivation is relaxation rather than game patterns. But that takes us back to the original example up top which shows us just how common and prevalent pattern-mastery fun is, because when that game releases that new area nearly all the players are going to show up there because that's the most interesting part of gaming to the majority of players. Not all players. Nearly all.
So hopefully that sheds light on why this actually is the most common way games are enjoyed by players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
it was one of the first D&D computer games made. Was it an electronic compainion to D&D as I had expected? like a tool to make the existing framework eaiser and/or more compelling? no it was a stand alone campaign...
I said to myself 'well someone will figure it out someday'
nope. The only time anyone came close was Neverwinter nights 1 in 2002
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Other issues I can think of are there is too much pointless story. If I wanted to I could probably spend a few hours a day reading quest text that really has little purpose other than isolated minor stories that are often long winded and unneeded.
To me removing quests is part of the answer in a multiplayer experience. There has to be other ways to keep people entertained. Quests often segregate the population by making it hard to group unless you intentionally go looking for one by queuing up. This also limits creativity as two people might find a way to tackle something intended for five by combining certain class skills.
I also tend to point out to people that 'stories in games' have always been possible its not just because of the computer its now possible so the question I have for them is why is it that stories havent been in games for thousands of year prior to this snap shot in time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me