quote:It's the "taking their loot" part -- or even the "getting their XP" part -- that's perceived as fun when it actually isn't. The "progression" that Xavier describes, the "loot" that Pix describes, are illusory achievements: the environment ramps up to match them, so nothing is actually GAINED. It's a treadmill of steadily-decreasing reward.
It IS fun - because the gain can be measured both by what one can do that one couldn't before and by what more one can do in the environment.
For example, there are a series of bards stationed in various places on one of the continents in EQ. They killed my character numerous times when it was weak.
Later, I went back and soloed each and everyone of them. It was fun.
I've also had fun in the economy on EQ. I got one piece of desirable equipment and sold it. Then I bought some other things that I knew were underpriced, carried them to a place where they were worth more, and sold them.
I bartered. I advertised. I engaged in price wars or cornered the market on certain things. It was fun. To me.
It was also useful to those didn't do this for fun, because the market let them do other things that were fun to them.
There's a lot of strategy involved in these games - equally-equipped/leveled characters can vary in power by factors of 2 or more. Convincing someone to try a new strategy and then fine tuning it is fun.
I know lots of raiders whose fun is figuring out the latest boss mob. Sure, they like the drops. But they also like figuring out ways to get around the developers' tricks.
This is what makes me think it's how you play the game that actually matters. You seem to have seized on one aspect - the progression - and declared that not really fun. But there's far more to the game than that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not really. There's more to the people who PLAY the game, but there's not much more to the game. I respect EVE a bit for this, because it's honest about it: the players bring a depth to it that the designers have been up-front about not being willing to implement. And yet even the most famous EVE "story" involves someone not actually playing the game.
It's like saying that RISK is a fun game because you can try to see how high you can stack the little plastic pieces.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the "taking their loot" part -- or even the "getting their XP" part -- that's perceived as fun when it actually isn't.
For you.
quote:The "progression" that Xavier describes, the "loot" that Pix describes, are illusory achievements:
As are all video game achievements. Winning the superbowl in Madden, beating the best time in Wave Race, killing Darth Malik in KOTOR, conquering the world in Civ, are all "fake" achievements. It's called a game for a reason. I think the part which you are missing is that gaining achievements, however illusory, can still be fun!
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Not really. There's more to the people who PLAY the game, but there's not much more to the game.
I think your definition of "the game" is hopelessly narrow. I do all of those things in the game. The reason I can do them all is because the game - by design - is free-form in structure and - again, by design - allows and encourages that type of interaction.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's like saying that RISK is a fun game because you can try to see how high you can stack the little plastic pieces.
No, it's more like saying that someone who uses house rules in D&D to have fun is still playing D&D.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'll go read a book, because there my reward on completion is definitely tangible....I've got it right here....
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Winning the superbowl in Madden, beating the best time in Wave Race, killing Darth Malik in KOTOR, conquering the world in Civ, are all "fake" achievements.
Oh, absolutely. But they all a) require skill, even if that skill is not useful in the real world and/or b) represent "accomplishment" in the game. If you win the Super Bowl or kill Malik, you've won; in a MMO, if you win the Super Bowl, that just means that someone else can't win it for a half hour. And that big sword you got from the nasty boss might make you better at killing things for the next ten minutes, but that just ensures that you'll level to a point where it's no longer a useful sword even faster.
I think we're calling "addiction" fun. It's like saying that video poker is "fun," instead of soul-deadening.
--------
calaban, you're missing the point I'm making. It's not that video game achievements aren't "real;" it's that MMO achievements aren't even real within the framework of the game. The few things that ARE "permanent" advantages -- like epic mounts, for example -- are generally deliberately grueling to get, mainly to increase their perceived value and exclusivity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, absolutely. But they all a) require skill, even if that skill is not useful in the real world and b) represent "accomplishment" in the game. If you win the Super Bowl or kill Malik, you've won; in a MMO, if you win the Super Bowl, that just means that someone else can't win it for a half hour. And that big sword you got from the nasty boss might make you better at killing things for the next ten minutes, but that just ensures that you'll level to a point where it's no longer a useful sword even faster.
I think we're calling "addiction" fun. It's like saying that video poker is "fun," instead of soul-deadening.
MMOs definitely require skill, unless one simply grinds until a new mob isn't difficult. Which is basically choosing to play in easy mode.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But as long as you choose to continue to play, you are in essence grinding until a new mob isn't difficult. That's part of what I meant about time being the only currency of value.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:MMOs definitely require skill, unless one simply grinds until a new mob isn't difficult. Which is basically choosing to play in easy mode.
And which you can no longer do at level 70 in WoW.
In order to progress in high end content, your group needs to do well together, and instant communication between team members is essential (which is why teamspeak is a requirement for pretty much all guilds these days). Killing a difficult boss can take just as much skill as capturing the flag in a FPS.
But you're also not considering PVP, Tom, in which you get better gear to help you kill other players with. I don't particularly feel the need to kill other players to feel like my progression "matters", but to those who do, you can go to a battleground or arena and you are basically playing a FPS at that point.
Edit: In this case, your arena wins and losses as a team are ranked like chess rankings, and the better your record, the higher your rank. This could be your "accomplishment" which you this is so vital.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as long as you choose to continue to play, you are in essence grinding until a new mob isn't difficult. That's part of what I meant about time being the only currency of value.
Which is only relevant if you keep hunting those mobs until then.
If you move on before they become easy, then that problem doesn't exist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I mentioned that I personally don't need PVP, perhaps I will expand on my own sense of accomplishment.
When I get to level 70, I plan on respeccing to a healing spec for my Shaman. To cut out the lingo, this means that instead of my character being set up to kill monsters, it will instead be set up to heal player characters.
I plan on using this character to help group of guild-mates clear harder and harder content. To me, being able to heal a party through difficult encounters will be all the accomplishment required to have fun. In order to be able to heal through these encounters. You need better and better gear, and loads of skill. You won't get anywhere if you have one, and not the other.
To me, overcoming greater and greater challenges is a blast.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you on quite a few points Tom , I was just trying to lighten the mood a little.
I especially agree that addiction to MMO's can be just as destructive as any other habit that is allowed to reach a cumpulsive level.
Take Wow for instance, To be member of a raiding guild often requires from 20 to 40 hours a week (some demand even more). Additionally you need to farm your own materials required for your raid on your "own time." That kind of commitment is what kills jobs, educations, and relationships not to mention the dangers to health and personal hygene.
I enjoy many aspects of WOW. The persistent character the rich backstory of games I have played in the past and the PVP aspects are a few of them. However in my opinion the demanded time to reach the pinnacle of the game is a little steep. I will not sacrifice anything to get purple pixles, including sleep. Its just not worth it to me.
But thats just me; There are those for who the required time is worth it. Some people really find playing for bragging rights fun. Being the person that has the unique mount or that edge on the battle field is what it's all about. I think we might consider shifting the nature of the debate here away from whether or not MMO's are fun towards a discussion on how fun is defined. Perhaps we might emphasise understanding why there are so many diverse ways people seek to have fun, some of which are not universally accepted by the rest of us.
posted
Tom, for gods sake man, enough. by your definition nothing is fun because everything is an illusion. I could up your logic one level and state that LIFE is meaningless because it is an illusion, I do not personally believe this but i believe it should fittingly represent the slipperly slope your logic leads to. People play games because we like it and thats the only reason that matters next thing we know youll try to campaign for video games to be banned for something.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tom, for gods sake man, enough. by your definition nothing is fun because everything is an illusion. I could up your logic one level and state that LIFE is meaningless because it is an illusion, I do not personally believe this but i believe it should fittingly represent the slipperly slope your logic leads to. People play games because we like it and thats the only reason that matters next thing we know youll try to campaign for video games to be banned for something.
In my book one of the primary components of fun is it's ethereal nature. Fun cannot last for ever or else it becomes tedium. For many people MMO's are nothing but tedium. I understand thier veiwpoint and do not consider it unjustifiable.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something is either fun or it is not. And it's an interpretation, on a personal level.
My MMO experience wasn't magically 'not actually fun' because the fun I was actually having was an 'illusion' with no 'real progress.' Whether I'm getting my fun from an MMO, video poker, reading a book, crack cocaine, yoga, sex, or whatever, it's all still fun as long as I'm having it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Has anyone considered the possibility that they might come out with something other than a simple RTS or MMORPG? Something along the lines of...
...a MMORTS?
Something along the lines of Gate 88--a dynamic RTS battlefield where hundreds of players engage each other in a battle for the Koprulu Sector. I could easily see something this massive coming out, especially from Blizzard. After all, their job listings involve both RTSs and MMORPGs.
Just a thought. Purely speculative. But I seriously doubt it.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
PVP in WoW (I'm not familiar with other MMORPGs) has to be about the most unsatisfying out there. I don't agree with everything Tom is saying, but I do agree with his point that time is the only currency that matters in WoW.
After playing battlegrounds against twinks, I don't think I'd seriously play PVP in MMORPGs. Lots of Gold=chugging pots every 2 minutes, godly gear, more opportunities for talent tweaks, etc. Since really, the only way to get gold is time, those people that have more time they are willing to invest in the game will always outclass people who spend less time.
I like a game like Counterstrike, where the only component is your skill (once you get past the learning curve). OTH, I do miss the lack of progression in CS. If only there was a way to get the progression based more on skill than grind....
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:After playing battlegrounds against twinks, I don't think I'd seriously play PVP in MMORPGs. Lots of Gold=chugging pots every 2 minutes, godly gear, more opportunities for talent tweaks, etc. Since really, the only way to get gold is time, those people that have more time they are willing to invest in the game will always outclass people who spend less time.
Try the arena. You have to be level 70, so no twinks. No consumables allowed.
You do need gear, of course, but all the rest is skill. The best arena gear is also gotten by, well, doing arena matches, so you don't even have to really compete much against hardcore raiders.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what would really rock? A non-online Blizzard game with no graphics to speak of and no multiplayer. It would be great if the file size were about 40 megs, too.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
are you on crack how would that be in anyway fun.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: are you on crack how would that be in anyway fun.
Novelty, Blayne. Novelty and originality. And no, I'm not on crack.
I'm only half-joking. I'd like to see a company like Blizzard put out a game that didn't make n00b computers explode, that didn't rely on massive online communities to make it fun, and didn't take a chunk out of your hard drive. Just to see if they could make it a good, playable game.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or perhaps "Starcraft". That game is still pretty much the peak of RTS, and I could play it on a lousy laptop.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm only half-joking. I'd like to see a company like Blizzard put out a game that didn't make n00b computers explode, that didn't rely on massive online communities to make it fun, and didn't take a chunk out of your hard drive. Just to see if they could make it a good, playable game.
I've played both Starcraft and Civ II. I'm talking about Blizzard or a company in the same vein releasing, now , a game that fits those specifications. Just for the interest of seeing what they would do.
And Starcraft is online. It does have a good single-player campaign, but most Starcraft is played on the Battlenet servers.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone explain the Fallout thing to me? I got told over and over again to play the games. A few years ago, I found a bundle pack of Fallout 1 & 2 at a CompUSA for $0.99 and tried them and I just couldn't get into it, which apparently makes me an RPG heretic.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Can someone explain the Fallout thing to me? I got told over and over again to play the games. A few years ago, I found a bundle pack of Fallout 1 & 2 at a CompUSA for $0.99 and tried them and I just couldn't get into it, which apparently makes me an RPG heretic.
And I am the self appointed inquisition. You will suffer for your crimes!
But seriously, If it a game doesn't suit you that's all good. I think it's funny how cliquish gamers can get. Someone who likes RPG's will trash the FF series, Fallout or the D&D titles as if thier distain actually is more important than another persons enjoyment. GT4 versus Forza. Wii, PS3 and 360 debates. Ford vs Chevy. Evo VS Impreza. Harley versus anything else.
It's as if people are seeking ways to foster even more distain through fabricating as many ways to feel superior to someone else as they possibly can. I can understand why people don't cotton to the Fallout series and that's fine by me; I'm just a sucker for post apocalyptic.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Total Annihilation trumps Starcraft every which way.
Damn straight. Gameplay-wise, it's not even a contest.
The one exception to TA's dominance is the storyline, which even Chris Taylor admits was frankly crap. But since the guys who wrote Starcraft's story have left Blizzard, anyway, I think it's a safe bet that Starcraft 2's story will be orders of magnitude crappier than its predecessor's... y'know, on a level with Warcraft 3.
That said, I'm still psyched for Starcraft 2. Not so much if it turns out to be World of Starcraft (Star of Starcraft? Galaxy of Starcraft? Space-time Continuum of Starcraft?).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: are you on crack how would that be in anyway fun.
Novelty, Blayne. Novelty and originality. And no, I'm not on crack.
I'm only half-joking. I'd like to see a company like Blizzard put out a game that didn't make n00b computers explode, that didn't rely on massive online communities to make it fun, and didn't take a chunk out of your hard drive. Just to see if they could make it a good, playable game.
Actually Toad its generally accepted that Blizzard makes their games very compatable with older computers. Its why people criticized WOW for not having super top end graphics.
But yes, if you have a computer that was say new when Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction came out it probably will not run their new game, whatever it is when it comes out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Total Annihilation trumps Starcraft every which way.
Damn straight. Gameplay-wise, it's not even a contest.
The one exception to TA's dominance is the storyline, which even Chris Taylor admits was frankly crap. But since the guys who wrote Starcraft's story have left Blizzard, anyway, I think it's a safe bet that Starcraft 2's story will be orders of magnitude crappier than its predecessor's... y'know, on a level with Warcraft 3.
This is somthing that I have heard debated quite hotly. Keep in mind that I love TA and have played it extensivley, I prefer starcraft for many reasons including unit controllability and unit balance.
I have a buddy that was well ranked on TA ladders, he even won a tournament in it's early days using a 14.4. Most of his losses came from DC's in matches where he had the upperhand. He was ungodly with the Dgun.
Later he became a Starcraft fan and was Ladder ranked on Battlenet for a while; I would sometimes just watch him play because the match was that interesting. I haven't seen a game that has the unit contol capacity that starcraft has. By that I mean if you take take two very skilled starcraft players the skill sets they have developed to get to that point will be far and above that required to play any other game at it's top level.
I will grant that in most cases thier matches come down to certain tactics and build schemes that are memorized, the issue is that all RTS have that element. I feel that getting beyond those pat build up schemes and zerg tactics is where Starcraft starts to shine.
It is the only game I know of that I can watch a skilled player play and be just as entertained as playing the game.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, I was just trying to lighten the mood a little. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
