"This isn't a WoW-specific issue or even one limited to MMOs. Gamers from all disciplines seem to be fond of complaining about games being easy without actually attempting anything to accomplish difficult. Big Huge Games noted in a GDC 2012 talk that "too easy" was a common complaint about Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, even though two-thirds of its players completed it on the easiest difficulty setting. BioWare's awesome infographic for Mass Effect 3, shown at last week's PAX East, showed that only four percent of players completed the game on "Insanity" difficulty. The "hardcore" in text don't seem to be all that "hardcore" in practice."
"So the next time you find yourself typing "too easy" in a comment box, maybe you should consider whether you've actually tried the hard stuff before you click the post button."
This is so true. Many other examples. WOW's famous Sunwell is done only by 2%. Even when LFR first came out, the "normal" mode is done only by 4% where LFR is done by a whopping 35% of the players.
Take D3 as another example. You can make the game highly difficulty with perma death. How many kill Diablo on MP10 hard core?
Hard modes and "insanity" settings are bandaids that add little or NO value to the gaming experience.
When hardcore players say they want hardmode they want the whole game to be hard so it builds community. Getting to level cap in older MMOs used to be a real acomplishment and it was usally impossible to solo through. Getting the Everquest EPIC done was a huge deal that took months and lot of team work. It wasn't something you just solo'ed though in a single weekend. Without community backing you weren't getting that epic done. So you kind of had to play the social game as well and that is what made it really hard. Players had to unite in the adversity of the more difficult game world. That is what hardmode is really about.
So when people say hardmode what they are really saying is they want community and sence of purpose. This a fundamental human want that will never go away. Modern games don't fill this human need though. It is a psycological aspect that makes those older games work.
I don't think that's true at all. Yes, players want community and a sense of purpose, but I don't think that's where they want the difficulty to be. In fact, most players that I've spoken to HATE that element of MMO's--the politics, the ridiculous cooperation required to coordinate events, loot distribution, group grinding, etc.
Plenty of games demonstrate that difficulty settings like Hard Modes are major factors in the success of the game. In any skill-based game, scaling difficult is virtually a requirement to ensure that the game is fun--this IS supported by decades of psychological research.
No, I think when most people say that they want challenge, they mean that they want more challenging gameplay, and if anything, LESS social challenge. Social challenges are stressful, and can even be harmful to player self-esteem, in a way that gameplay challenges are not.
In either case, it's definitely not true that difficult settings add little value to games. In many cases, they define the value of the game. e.g., imagine if Guitar Hero only had an Easy Mode. It wouldn't be nearly as successful without the Medium, Hard, and Expert settings. This is true of a very large number of games throughout history.
There is one really cool example how a game circumvented difficulty. It was the original Serious Sam. If you had to do a certain difficult task, just timed jumping over a chasm, after a while the game offered you to teleport to the other side if you failed several times. Same with some Adventure games, which have a timer, and after a while it offers you the solution. I really like that in games. I just hate it to be stuck, or die repeatendly no matter what I try.
Usually too many games offer just ONE WAY to solve anything. So it isn't hardship or difficulty, just you have to redo exactly what some developer had in mind. Especially strategy games are plagued with that. I only remember "Myth - Kreuzzug ins Ungewisse" (I can't for the love of God find out it's English name.) was different. Even if one of two approaches to win a map failed, you didn't have to restart. You still could turn all around and win.
Some games are particularly bad in this, namely the last Heroes of Might and Magic and Age of Empires. You could play on for HOURS, not knowing that you had already lost long ago, because you did something wrong, and hours were played for nothing, because beyond the fog of war the enemy had built 10 times as much as you. I hate that. I want chances to take a difficult situation still around, have a chance to make another way. Too often games force you down one particular road or method to win, and then it all comes down to google THE only strategy to win.
Call that difficult, if you want, I call it stupid.
EDIT: The game was named "Myth: The Fallen Lords" in English. LOVED that game.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Originally posted by Disdena So you've beaten all the hardest raids in WoW, right? You haven't? That's the point of the OP's post. People are way too fond of calling something easy even though they're not capable of doing it or have never tried.
So WoW is hard because of a few raids that make up how much of the total game?
Would you call leveling in WoW hard?
Would you call crafting in WoW hard?
Would you call quest running in WoW hard?
Would you call the death penalty in WoW hard?
Since I don't raid in WoW, would *my* personal opinion of "WoW is easy" hold any merit? Not for people who place raiding at the top. But it may hold merit for the <insert made up percentage> of the playerbase who do not raid.
With your logic, any game that has something I cannot do/beat is hard. Even if I can easily complete the other hundreds of activities in the game. Now, if that one activity I cannot beat is the reason I play the game, I would agree that it is hard. But throwing up the reason *you* play a game to others who could not care less about it and saying "This IS a hard game!" does not work. One needs multiple examples of difficulties to cover more players than "just raiding." Unless one uses a jumping console game or an FPS game as an example. Then everyone who plays it is on the same page.
The questions I ask myself, and sometimes post them, when I read about "WoW hard mode dungeons/raids" are: "Did that poster run to Google, YouTube, or some fan site to find out how to beat it, or did they figure it out for themselves?" "What add-ons did they use?"
Passing a tough history final exam without a cheat sheet is hard. Use a cheat sheet and it no longer is. If they figure it out themselves, wiping multiple times as they figure things out, I am duly impressed. Otherwise, I wonder at their grasp of reality. "I beat the raid" does mean squat when they followed a guide on how to do so.
When placed in context, "This game is hard!" does not always hold up to scrutiny. The opposite also is true. Without asking questions for clarification, it is just text on the internet.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Games don't even need to be "hard" necessarily--they need to be challenging. There needs to be a real risk that you will lose. That risk doesn't need to be (and shouldn't generally be) cranked up to 11, however.
Originally posted by xdemonhunter for starters there is no way to pick difficult setting in a massive online game unlike single player games,
uh? Where have you been?I can pick difficulty in DDO, and WOW (3 difficulty of raid, 2 difficulty of 5-man dungeon).
I want to see you pick your difficulty setting in a non-instanced setting. Can you hunt Goldshire or Durotar in hard-mode? City of Heroes also had difficulty settings, but only for instances.
You really need to get another example for a game besides D3 for MMO discussions. Square peg, round hole.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by doodphace Not to go back and fourth with this, but I literally do not know a single active WoW player with a max level toon (mains, not alts) who has not at least done an LFR (I realise this sint the most compelling argument). LFR is done exactly like 5 man dungons, they are "easy", and you queue for them individually or as a group. I am willing to bet my life savings that LFR use is over 50%, just like the dungon finder.
So, a player who raids a couple of times is counted as the player base needed to justify the raiding?
How about phrasing the question thusly: "How many WoW players actively raid?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
For non-instanced difficulty settings, you just offer progressive rewards. e.g., supposing you overhunt by ten levels, you recieve an exponential XP bonus. In other words, if you could normally only be expected to defeat enemies that were your level, but it were possible to kill enemies 5 levels above you (but it took 5 times as long to do all considered), then they reward you with 10x the XP you'd get for killing a mob of the same level as you.
Most MMOs intuitively have challenges designed that are more difficult than what you're expected to complete. The problem isn't that they don't have different levels of difficulty, it's that they don't reward you for actually overcoming those challenges. In fact, more often than not, they actually punish you with inefficient XP/hour and an undesirable risk:reward prospect.
for starters there is no way to pick difficult setting in a massive online game unlike single player games,
uh? Where have you been?
I can pick difficulty in DDO, and WOW (3 difficulty of raid, 2 difficulty of 5-man dungeon).
Could do it for instances in CoH too.
In fact, this probably should be a standard feature in MMOs. Clearly different people want different levels of difficulty, and clearly this is doable. There is little reason not to give it to them.
City of Heroes did a number of things that should be standard. Difficultty settings is one of them.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by Disdena So you've beaten all the hardest raids in WoW, right? You haven't? That's the point of the OP's post. People are way too fond of calling something easy even though they're not capable of doing it or have never tried.
So WoW is hard because of a few raids that make up how much of the total game?
Would you call leveling in WoW hard?
Would you call crafting in WoW hard?
Would you call quest running in WoW hard?
Would you call the death penalty in WoW hard?
Since I don't raid in WoW, would *my* personal opinion of "WoW is easy" hold any merit? Not for people who place raiding at the top. But it may hold merit for the of the playerbase who do not raid.
But the person I was quoting made a direct comparison between WoW raids and DAOC raids. Specifically, "the hardest (most gimmicky) raid in WoW is still easier than almost all raids in DAOC." Level of difficulty is subjective so it's possible for one player to agree with that statement while another player disagrees. But if he hasn't done any raiding, his opinion on the subject doesn't have any merit.
Originally posted by xdemonhunter for starters there is no way to pick difficult setting in a massive online game unlike single player games,
uh? Where have you been?
I can pick difficulty in DDO, and WOW (3 difficulty of raid, 2 difficulty of 5-man dungeon).
I want to see you pick your difficulty setting in a non-instanced setting. Can you hunt Goldshire or Durotar in hard-mode? City of Heroes also had difficulty settings, but only for instances.
You really need to get another example for a game besides D3 for MMO discussions. Square peg, round hole.
Try hunting in an area that is higher level than you.
For WoW outside of PvP and Raiding it is not meant to be "hard"...outside of those it is about collecting mainly. Rep, mounts, gear, etc. The acqusition of stuff is what keeps people in the game. Hard is collecting all the stuff in X amount of time that you will actually want to play the game. If you do not like raiding, PvP, or collecting frankly WoW is not for you. I found Eve to be very simplistic and boring. Nothing was "hard"...annoying maybe, but not hard.
WoW was made by Everquest players, by players from Legacy of Steel. LoS was a medicore guild that had a lot of QQ players on the forums of Everquest. They were ranked somehwere as guild 50, top ones were Tide, Darkwind, Ceistus Dei Aetherius and a few others I don't remember.
They croked somewhere in the middle of Gates of Discord (same place Fires of Heaven and annoying loudmouth Furer croked).
Only 2 people were former EQ players. Tigole and Furor.
Tigole was leader of Legacy of Steel. LoS had most of the world first raid kills and therefor a lot of influence with the SOE developers and raid design. Before Tigole took over LoS the guild was run by Rob Pardo.
Also, when Tigole joined WoW in 2002 he worked on quest design.
Furor was leader of Fires of Heaven and was EQs first level 50. FoH also had many world first achievements.
Seems like the only person that needs a history lesson is you. Its funny that you are so intent on bashing WoW that you will try and rewrite EQs history to do it. Its quite laughable to call Legacy of Steel a "mediocre guild".
Maybe if you didn't use Wikipedia as your source you wouldn't have to make up stuff.
No one in EQ even uses the word "world kills", world kills is a word that comes from WoW. You used wikipedia didn't you, since it says world kills there. In EQ they're called serverwide kills.
Legacy of steel was a mediocre guild that died in GoD.
And Furor was an annoying person, widely hated on the forum for his rants, no one liked him. Fires of Heaven is just as annoying of a site as it always has been, it attracts former players who gave up on Everquest, like I assume you did since if you knew anything about GoD you wouldn't be talking good about LoS or FoH, since their rants were ridiculous and extremely nasty sometimes towards other players.
SoE developers giving Furor a voice you claim isn't helping your case, those same developrs responsible for some of the expansions back then were the ones who paid off hackers to give them their cheats code in exchange for gear. Came out a few years ago when people asked why some players were running around with gear from unbeaten raids.
Potatoes and pineapples, I do not care about any of this, but I don't like people trying to rewrite history. No one cares anymore what anyone did after EQ or what people did in "WoW" or how hardcore game X or Y is. No game will be like EQ anymore and MMO are not about rankings anymore, but it's annoying to see people try to rewrite history through wikipedia.
The people who designed WoW were jerks.
Legacy of steel ranked 48 before they bailed on EQ:
WoW was made by Everquest players, by players from Legacy of Steel. LoS was a medicore guild that had a lot of QQ players on the forums of Everquest. They were ranked somehwere as guild 50, top ones were Tide, Darkwind, Ceistus Dei Aetherius and a few others I don't remember.
They croked somewhere in the middle of Gates of Discord (same place Fires of Heaven and annoying loudmouth Furer croked).
Only 2 people were former EQ players. Tigole and Furor.
Tigole was leader of Legacy of Steel. LoS had most of the world first raid kills and therefor a lot of influence with the SOE developers and raid design. Before Tigole took over LoS the guild was run by Rob Pardo.
Also, when Tigole joined WoW in 2002 he worked on quest design.
Furor was leader of Fires of Heaven and was EQs first level 50. FoH also had many world first achievements.
Seems like the only person that needs a history lesson is you. Its funny that you are so intent on bashing WoW that you will try and rewrite EQs history to do it. Its quite laughable to call Legacy of Steel a "mediocre guild".
Maybe if you didn't use Wikipedia as your source you wouldn't have to make up stuff.
No one in EQ even uses the word "world kills", world kills is a word that comes from WoW. You used wikipedia didn't you, since it says world kills there. In EQ they're called serverwide kills.
Legacy of steel was a mediocre guild that died in GoD.
And Furor was an annoying person, widely hated on the forum for his rants, no one liked him. Fires of Heaven is just as annoying of a site as it always has been, it attracts former players who gave up on Everquest, like I assume you did since if you knew anything about GoD you wouldn't be talking good about LoS or FoH, since their rants were ridiculous and extremely nasty sometimes towards other players.
SoE developers giving Furor a voice you claim isn't helping your case, those same developrs responsible for some of the expansions back then were the ones who paid off hackers to give them their cheats code in exchange for gear. Came out a few years ago when people asked why some players were running around with gear from unbeaten raids.
Legacy of steel ranked 48 during GoD, they were 30+ something in Inktu'ta and Uqua.
Potatoes and pineapples, I do not care about any of this, but I don't like people trying to rewrite history. No one cares anymore what anyone did after EQ or what people did in "WoW" or how hardcore game X or Y is. No game will be like EQ anymore and MMO are not about rankings anymore, but it's annoying to see people try to rewrite history through wikipedia.
The people who designed WoW were jerks.
EQ was for the weak nerds....AC was for the kings.
Originally posted by xdemonhunter for starters there is no way to pick difficult setting in a massive online game unlike single player games,
uh? Where have you been?I can pick difficulty in DDO, and WOW (3 difficulty of raid, 2 difficulty of 5-man dungeon).
I want to see you pick your difficulty setting in a non-instanced setting. Can you hunt Goldshire or Durotar in hard-mode? City of Heroes also had difficulty settings, but only for instances.You really need to get another example for a game besides D3 for MMO discussions. Square peg, round hole.
Try hunting in an area that is higher level than you.
Which, I think, is possible in many (most?) MMOs, yes?
In City of Heroes, a player could fight "purples" (over 5 levels higher than the player) for good XP. Many players used purples to level quicker. Most zones (with the exception of "danger zones") any player could get to at any level. I have no qualm with that
City of Heroes also had a difficulty setting for "missions", or instances. You could set it to add opponents, bosses, and even an arch villain if so desired. This setting coupled with a group to help (which also added opponents) made for the quickest way to level, encouraging both grouping AND mission running.
But choosing a difficulty in an MMO area where other players also are is impossible. How can 1 player have hard core or nightmare level opponents while the player next to them has normal, or even easy level mobs?
I like Everwest's idea of better rewards for hunting higher than your character. This is a player mechanic and decision to make a game more difficult, not a game mechanic, which I agree with.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by doodphace Not to go back and fourth with this, but I literally do not know a single active WoW player with a max level toon (mains, not alts) who has not at least done an LFR (I realise this sint the most compelling argument). LFR is done exactly like 5 man dungons, they are "easy", and you queue for them individually or as a group. I am willing to bet my life savings that LFR use is over 50%, just like the dungon finder.
So, a player who raids a couple of times is counted as the player base needed to justify the raiding?
How about phrasing the question thusly: "How many WoW players actively raid?"
Even though that was not the point of the posts, you really think most of those people queued for LFR twice, and never did it again? Thats just like that argument that most of wow subscribers are in asia and play for 2 min a month.
There is no sugar coating it, WoW endgame is all about raiding and PVP, and most people seem to enjoy it.
There is no denying that pre LFR, not many people were capable of completeing each raid tier (oddly enough, because it was too difficult or time consuming for casual guilds/players). That does not mean they wern't raiding. Go have a look at the % of guilds that cleared the first few bosses of each raid tier, its quite high. There is also no question that since the invention of LFR, more people than ever are raiding (yes, over 50%). If you want to have a discussion regarding the justification of raids, I won't partake. If you want to discuss them being too "easy", I will be here all day ;-)
Originally posted by Waterlily Potatoes and pineapples, I do not care about any of this, but I don't like people trying to rewrite history. No one cares anymore what anyone did after EQ or what people did in "WoW" or how hardcore game X or Y is. No game will be like EQ anymore and MMO are not about rankings anymore, but it's annoying to see people try to rewrite history through wikipedia.The people who designed WoW were jerks.
Ah, so its all lies. Legacy of Steel wasnt actually a good guild they simply lied about it through wikipedia. Well, yeah, that sounds MUCH more plausible.
And your list of guilds(with zero reference or citation) for an expansion(that even SOE called "worst mistake in years") that came out 2 years after Tigole and Furor left EQ to work on WoW proves it.
Sounds more like a personal vendetta fueled by WoW Hate and tin foil hat conspiracy.
Originally posted by xdemonhunter for starters there is no way to pick difficult setting in a massive online game unlike single player games,
uh? Where have you been?
I can pick difficulty in DDO, and WOW (3 difficulty of raid, 2 difficulty of 5-man dungeon).
I want to see you pick your difficulty setting in a non-instanced setting. Can you hunt Goldshire or Durotar in hard-mode? City of Heroes also had difficulty settings, but only for instances.
You really need to get another example for a game besides D3 for MMO discussions. Square peg, round hole.
Most MMOs are heavy in instanced. In fact, for a lot of people, most play-time is in instanced. That is true for WOW, DCUO, STO, and many other MMOs. In that regard, D3 is close enough to a MMO for me.
And non-instanced setting ... is that really that relevant when people are just hanging out in cities waiting for their dungeons to pop.
I've found a lot of people who say MMOs are too "easy" are 10+ year veterans who, after this amout of time, should damn well be quite skilled at playing them.
If it is still "hard" after 10 years, you're doing it wrong...
Thats pretty much true...Those of us that were reared in EQ and UO had to learn how to play or we died and were hit with harsh penalties......Once WoW came out players didn't have to be as sharp because the penalties for dying were meaningless......ALso the games have become easier...In 1999 EQ most classes couldn't solo...The ones that could had to fight mobs lower than them with the exception of one or two classes...in WoW you could easily solo with any class and most classes could handle mobs 5 levels or so higher.....That right there told me the game was easier.
I've found a lot of people who say MMOs are too "easy" are 10+ year veterans who, after this amout of time, should damn well be quite skilled at playing them.
If it is still "hard" after 10 years, you're doing it wrong...
Thats pretty much true...Those of us that were reared in EQ and UO had to learn how to play or we died and were hit with harsh penalties......Once WoW came out players didn't have to be as sharp because the penalties for dying were meaningless......ALso the games have become easier...In 1999 EQ most classes couldn't solo...The ones that could had to fight mobs lower than them with the exception of one or two classes...in WoW you could easily solo with any class and most classes could handle mobs 5 levels or so higher.....That right there told me the game was easier.
So you don't get the point of the article at all.
No one says solo-leveling is not easy. But WOW has both hard and easy content. Is a game easy if it is some easy content? Heck UO is easy. Mining is clicking a rock again and again .. easy.
EQ is easy ... reprenishing mana is staring at a spell book doing nothing ... easy.
Since there is easy gameplay, the whole game must be easy.
Originally posted by Xiaoki And your list of guilds(with zero reference or citation)
Another clue you don't know what you're talking about and are using wikipedia as your sources, you should know where the list is from.
At least he has a source? I have yet to see yours.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
"This isn't a WoW-specific issue or even one limited to MMOs. Gamers from all disciplines seem to be fond of complaining about games being easy without actually attempting anything to accomplish difficult. Big Huge Games noted in a GDC 2012 talk that "too easy" was a common complaint about Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, even though two-thirds of its players completed it on the easiest difficulty setting. BioWare's awesome infographic for Mass Effect 3, shown at last week's PAX East, showed that only four percent of players completed the game on "Insanity" difficulty. The "hardcore" in text don't seem to be all that "hardcore" in practice."
"So the next time you find yourself typing "too easy" in a comment box, maybe you should consider whether you've actually tried the hard stuff before you click the post button."
This is so true. Many other examples. WOW's famous Sunwell is done only by 2%. Even when LFR first came out, the "normal" mode is done only by 4% where LFR is done by a whopping 35% of the players.
Take D3 as another example. You can make the game highly difficulty with perma death. How many kill Diablo on MP10 hard core?
As usual everyone including the devs are missing the point. When people talk about a game being easy they are NOT TALKING about the DIFFICUTY setting. Geez we are not talking about making games "harder" by sliding a bar up and down...........
"This isn't a WoW-specific issue or even one limited to MMOs. Gamers from all disciplines seem to be fond of complaining about games being easy without actually attempting anything to accomplish difficult. Big Huge Games noted in a GDC 2012 talk that "too easy" was a common complaint about Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, even though two-thirds of its players completed it on the easiest difficulty setting. BioWare's awesome infographic for Mass Effect 3, shown at last week's PAX East, showed that only four percent of players completed the game on "Insanity" difficulty. The "hardcore" in text don't seem to be all that "hardcore" in practice."
"So the next time you find yourself typing "too easy" in a comment box, maybe you should consider whether you've actually tried the hard stuff before you click the post button."
This is so true. Many other examples. WOW's famous Sunwell is done only by 2%. Even when LFR first came out, the "normal" mode is done only by 4% where LFR is done by a whopping 35% of the players.
Take D3 as another example. You can make the game highly difficulty with perma death. How many kill Diablo on MP10 hard core?
As usual everyone including the devs are missing the point. When people talk about a game being easy they are NOT TALKING about the DIFFICUTY setting. Geez we are not talking about making games "harder" by sliding a bar up and down...........
Then what are we talkign about? Certainly there is a bar to slide up and down there .. and it changes difficulty .. does it not?
Comments
Very well made, totally wrong.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I don't think that's true at all. Yes, players want community and a sense of purpose, but I don't think that's where they want the difficulty to be. In fact, most players that I've spoken to HATE that element of MMO's--the politics, the ridiculous cooperation required to coordinate events, loot distribution, group grinding, etc.
Plenty of games demonstrate that difficulty settings like Hard Modes are major factors in the success of the game. In any skill-based game, scaling difficult is virtually a requirement to ensure that the game is fun--this IS supported by decades of psychological research.
No, I think when most people say that they want challenge, they mean that they want more challenging gameplay, and if anything, LESS social challenge. Social challenges are stressful, and can even be harmful to player self-esteem, in a way that gameplay challenges are not.
In either case, it's definitely not true that difficult settings add little value to games. In many cases, they define the value of the game. e.g., imagine if Guitar Hero only had an Easy Mode. It wouldn't be nearly as successful without the Medium, Hard, and Expert settings. This is true of a very large number of games throughout history.
There is one really cool example how a game circumvented difficulty. It was the original Serious Sam. If you had to do a certain difficult task, just timed jumping over a chasm, after a while the game offered you to teleport to the other side if you failed several times. Same with some Adventure games, which have a timer, and after a while it offers you the solution. I really like that in games. I just hate it to be stuck, or die repeatendly no matter what I try.
Usually too many games offer just ONE WAY to solve anything. So it isn't hardship or difficulty, just you have to redo exactly what some developer had in mind. Especially strategy games are plagued with that. I only remember "Myth - Kreuzzug ins Ungewisse" (I can't for the love of God find out it's English name.) was different. Even if one of two approaches to win a map failed, you didn't have to restart. You still could turn all around and win.
Some games are particularly bad in this, namely the last Heroes of Might and Magic and Age of Empires. You could play on for HOURS, not knowing that you had already lost long ago, because you did something wrong, and hours were played for nothing, because beyond the fog of war the enemy had built 10 times as much as you. I hate that. I want chances to take a difficult situation still around, have a chance to make another way. Too often games force you down one particular road or method to win, and then it all comes down to google THE only strategy to win.
Call that difficult, if you want, I call it stupid.
EDIT: The game was named "Myth: The Fallen Lords" in English. LOVED that game.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Would you call leveling in WoW hard?
Would you call crafting in WoW hard?
Would you call quest running in WoW hard?
Would you call the death penalty in WoW hard?
Since I don't raid in WoW, would *my* personal opinion of "WoW is easy" hold any merit? Not for people who place raiding at the top. But it may hold merit for the <insert made up percentage> of the playerbase who do not raid.
With your logic, any game that has something I cannot do/beat is hard. Even if I can easily complete the other hundreds of activities in the game. Now, if that one activity I cannot beat is the reason I play the game, I would agree that it is hard. But throwing up the reason *you* play a game to others who could not care less about it and saying "This IS a hard game!" does not work. One needs multiple examples of difficulties to cover more players than "just raiding." Unless one uses a jumping console game or an FPS game as an example. Then everyone who plays it is on the same page.
The questions I ask myself, and sometimes post them, when I read about "WoW hard mode dungeons/raids" are:
"Did that poster run to Google, YouTube, or some fan site to find out how to beat it, or did they figure it out for themselves?"
"What add-ons did they use?"
Passing a tough history final exam without a cheat sheet is hard. Use a cheat sheet and it no longer is. If they figure it out themselves, wiping multiple times as they figure things out, I am duly impressed. Otherwise, I wonder at their grasp of reality. "I beat the raid" does mean squat when they followed a guide on how to do so.
When placed in context, "This game is hard!" does not always hold up to scrutiny. The opposite also is true. Without asking questions for clarification, it is just text on the internet.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
You really need to get another example for a game besides D3 for MMO discussions. Square peg, round hole.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
How about phrasing the question thusly:
"How many WoW players actively raid?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
For non-instanced difficulty settings, you just offer progressive rewards. e.g., supposing you overhunt by ten levels, you recieve an exponential XP bonus. In other words, if you could normally only be expected to defeat enemies that were your level, but it were possible to kill enemies 5 levels above you (but it took 5 times as long to do all considered), then they reward you with 10x the XP you'd get for killing a mob of the same level as you.
Most MMOs intuitively have challenges designed that are more difficult than what you're expected to complete. The problem isn't that they don't have different levels of difficulty, it's that they don't reward you for actually overcoming those challenges. In fact, more often than not, they actually punish you with inefficient XP/hour and an undesirable risk:reward prospect.
City of Heroes did a number of things that should be standard. Difficultty settings is one of them.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
But the person I was quoting made a direct comparison between WoW raids and DAOC raids. Specifically, "the hardest (most gimmicky) raid in WoW is still easier than almost all raids in DAOC." Level of difficulty is subjective so it's possible for one player to agree with that statement while another player disagrees. But if he hasn't done any raiding, his opinion on the subject doesn't have any merit.
Try hunting in an area that is higher level than you.
Maybe if you didn't use Wikipedia as your source you wouldn't have to make up stuff.
No one in EQ even uses the word "world kills", world kills is a word that comes from WoW. You used wikipedia didn't you, since it says world kills there. In EQ they're called serverwide kills.
Legacy of steel was a mediocre guild that died in GoD.
And Furor was an annoying person, widely hated on the forum for his rants, no one liked him. Fires of Heaven is just as annoying of a site as it always has been, it attracts former players who gave up on Everquest, like I assume you did since if you knew anything about GoD you wouldn't be talking good about LoS or FoH, since their rants were ridiculous and extremely nasty sometimes towards other players.
SoE developers giving Furor a voice you claim isn't helping your case, those same developrs responsible for some of the expansions back then were the ones who paid off hackers to give them their cheats code in exchange for gear. Came out a few years ago when people asked why some players were running around with gear from unbeaten raids.
Potatoes and pineapples, I do not care about any of this, but I don't like people trying to rewrite history. No one cares anymore what anyone did after EQ or what people did in "WoW" or how hardcore game X or Y is. No game will be like EQ anymore and MMO are not about rankings anymore, but it's annoying to see people try to rewrite history through wikipedia.
The people who designed WoW were jerks.
Legacy of steel ranked 48 before they bailed on EQ:
EQ was for the weak nerds....AC was for the kings.
Kings were the people who sold their sword on Ebay for $1000 and quit the game.
In City of Heroes, a player could fight "purples" (over 5 levels higher than the player) for good XP. Many players used purples to level quicker. Most zones (with the exception of "danger zones") any player could get to at any level. I have no qualm with that
City of Heroes also had a difficulty setting for "missions", or instances. You could set it to add opponents, bosses, and even an arch villain if so desired. This setting coupled with a group to help (which also added opponents) made for the quickest way to level, encouraging both grouping AND mission running.
But choosing a difficulty in an MMO area where other players also are is impossible. How can 1 player have hard core or nightmare level opponents while the player next to them has normal, or even easy level mobs?
I like Everwest's idea of better rewards for hunting higher than your character. This is a player mechanic and decision to make a game more difficult, not a game mechanic, which I agree with.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Even though that was not the point of the posts, you really think most of those people queued for LFR twice, and never did it again? Thats just like that argument that most of wow subscribers are in asia and play for 2 min a month.
There is no sugar coating it, WoW endgame is all about raiding and PVP, and most people seem to enjoy it.
There is no denying that pre LFR, not many people were capable of completeing each raid tier (oddly enough, because it was too difficult or time consuming for casual guilds/players). That does not mean they wern't raiding. Go have a look at the % of guilds that cleared the first few bosses of each raid tier, its quite high. There is also no question that since the invention of LFR, more people than ever are raiding (yes, over 50%). If you want to have a discussion regarding the justification of raids, I won't partake. If you want to discuss them being too "easy", I will be here all day ;-)
And your list of guilds(with zero reference or citation) for an expansion(that even SOE called "worst mistake in years") that came out 2 years after Tigole and Furor left EQ to work on WoW proves it.
Sounds more like a personal vendetta fueled by WoW Hate and tin foil hat conspiracy.
Most MMOs are heavy in instanced. In fact, for a lot of people, most play-time is in instanced. That is true for WOW, DCUO, STO, and many other MMOs. In that regard, D3 is close enough to a MMO for me.
And non-instanced setting ... is that really that relevant when people are just hanging out in cities waiting for their dungeons to pop.
Another clue you don't know what you're talking about and are using wikipedia as your sources, you should know where the list is from.
Thats pretty much true...Those of us that were reared in EQ and UO had to learn how to play or we died and were hit with harsh penalties......Once WoW came out players didn't have to be as sharp because the penalties for dying were meaningless......ALso the games have become easier...In 1999 EQ most classes couldn't solo...The ones that could had to fight mobs lower than them with the exception of one or two classes...in WoW you could easily solo with any class and most classes could handle mobs 5 levels or so higher.....That right there told me the game was easier.
So you don't get the point of the article at all.
No one says solo-leveling is not easy. But WOW has both hard and easy content. Is a game easy if it is some easy content? Heck UO is easy. Mining is clicking a rock again and again .. easy.
EQ is easy ... reprenishing mana is staring at a spell book doing nothing ... easy.
Since there is easy gameplay, the whole game must be easy.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
As usual everyone including the devs are missing the point. When people talk about a game being easy they are NOT TALKING about the DIFFICUTY setting. Geez we are not talking about making games "harder" by sliding a bar up and down...........
Then what are we talkign about? Certainly there is a bar to slide up and down there .. and it changes difficulty .. does it not?