This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Originally posted by NovusodZero time investment games certainly exist. Try GW2 some time, it's core game can be completed in about a day or two. After that you are just stuck going through different starting areas.Then there is your favorite game SWTOR which all my friends completed in a week and then we moved on before our free month was even up. GW2 is buy to play so they don't have incentive to keep people playing forever but what is TOR's excuse?Any MMO that gives less than a month worth of content isn't even worth looking at. Personally I prefer the old school games that last 6 months to a year. Slow leveling, dungeon crawls, camping rare bosses, single quests that took a week to complete; that is what MMOs used to be about. We not talking about a casual 30 minute League of Legends session here.Here is a better analogy. What feat is something to be more proud of: Reading the entire 1000+ page Lord of the Rings Books or watching the movie Trilogy. There is no right or wrong answer here but I guess you would just watch the movie. I will take the book thank you very much.
Zero time investment means (...wait for it...) zero time investment. All games take time. Therefore zero time investment games don't exist.
You still need to learn the difference between facts and opinions.
Your opinion that SWTOR is bad doesn't change the fact that it was financially successful. When I stated the fact that SWTOR was financially successful, that's not the same as my opinion of SWTOR. SWTOR is by no means my "favorite game" just because I stated facts about it. It's an average MMORPG with a few key shortcomings.
So far the discussion is more about criticizing intentionally time-wasting MMORPGs. Which is different from trying to make excuses for short MMORPGs. Games with things like travel which are just arbitrarily long time-sinks are what's mainly being criticized.
That said, I'm happy to point out that short games can be tons of fun and completely worth the time and money investment. While I'd love for more MMORPGs with the depth and design quality of WOW to be released which keep me playing for years, a short GW2 which keeps me playing 80-100 hours for $60 is totally worth my time and money.
Remember, EQ1's designer wasn't leveling up in pre-release EQ1 one day saying to himself, "You know what would make this more fun? Doubling the time it takes to level!"
Instead, he was forced to make it take long to level by content constraints and the business model (keeping players subscribed.) Today he'd probably laugh at the irony of players defending a design decision forced upon him by business constraints, which he knew wouldn't actually make the game more fun.
Lastly, you would barely be more proud of someone who read Lord of the Rings than who watched the movies, because neither task involves much challenge. Nobody's going to say, "Sure you took home three Olympic gold medals, but you only spent 40 minutes in total across your events. But my friend spent 2 years reading Lord of the Rings! Much bigger accomplishment"
A challenge which requires a lot of skill is an accomplishment. Time investment is an almost inconsequential factor by comparison.
"Lord of the Rings"? Pfaaah! I read the "Simarillion"!
Most people read books for the sake of reading books. If there was some sense of pride, it would have been in reading something that is a difficult read. Like Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. Even there, the impetus to read the book would be to enjoy reading it, not to gain some accomplishment. Ditto for movies. I saw Pacific Rim and I enjoyed it, and I'll happily tell people about it, but I'm not proud of it.
For some reason, some people take pride in having played some* MMORPG. Not pride in beating a particularly tough encounter, or getting a large number of kills in PvP, pride in just having played the game. If the only real difference between older games and newer games is the time investment, then obviously that is the source of their pride.
The first problem is taking pride in a game that's designed for you to win. One may be designed to take longer to win than another, but the central design principal of both games is that eventually everyone can be a winner in some way. The second problem is identifying the time sink aspects of the game as the part that divides the 'winners' from the 'losers'. If the only difference between game "A" and game "B" is the amount of time something takes, then the only thing being tested is one's ability to wait. People seem to be taking an inordinate amount of pride in their patience.
* Yes, I used 'some' a lot there. It got the idea across.
**
Oddly enough, I do take pride in having finished Silent Hill 2, since a lot of people didn't finish the game. I don't think this is the same thing as being proud of just playing the game though, and that's what it seems people are doing. They are just proud they played the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Axehilt Zero time investment means (...wait for it...) zero time investment. All games take time. Therefore zero time investment games don't exist....A challenge which requires a lot of skill is an accomplishment. Time investment is an almost inconsequential factor by comparison.
... For some reason, some people take pride in having played some* MMORPG. Not pride in beating a particularly tough encounter, or getting a large number of kills in PvP, pride in just having played the game. If the only real difference between older games and newer games is the time investment, then obviously that is the source of their pride.
The first problem is taking pride in a game that's designed for you to win. One may be designed to take longer to win than another, but the central design principal of both games is that eventually everyone can be a winner in some way. The second problem is identifying the time sink aspects of the game as the part that divides the 'winners' from the 'losers'. If the only difference between game "A" and game "B" is the amount of time something takes, then the only thing being tested is one's ability to wait. People seem to be taking an inordinate amount of pride in their patience.
...
So, are you trying to say you merely want to play an MMORPG for "pride"? I don't accrue any amount of pride when playing an MMO (besides maybe when my character finally looks as badass as I wanted and I get an occassional compliment), but it was never about pride. It's about using your time or maybe I should use the more popularized term on this thread "time-sinking" effectively where I found it most enjoyable and fun.
Ultimately I agree with Axehilt first of all that every game/hobby is a timesink and its inevitable and I already pointed this out earlier. Making it sound like you are wasting your time while playing a video game is absolutely absurd to say because the whole purpose of video games is to effectively waste time in the first place hence why we call things like this pastimes.
I think your argument, lizardbones, fall short because it really only applies to people that actually care about pride which I would like to assume is few and far between. What are you arguing here, oh this took more skill than that one? I was more patient than the next guy in accomplishing a task?
You know you use silent hill 2 as an example of the latter question but its the same exact sort of "pride" that someone might take in completing 100% exploration in a world because they didn't give up as easily. It's almost likes saying "Well in my experiences in games, this negative bias I have doesn't apply to me but to everyone else, this totally does." Which is completely unfair because you merely boosted your experience and trivialized everyone elses over pretty much the same issue.
What you did with Silent Hill 2 is the same thing as what anyone else has done to complete a "challenging" task, they spent more time on it and constantly failed until they succeeded, just like anything else. Your opinion comes off as a little hypocritical IMO.
"Lord of the Rings"? Pfaaah! I read the "Simarillion"!
Most people read books for the sake of reading books. If there was some sense of pride, it would have been in reading something that is a difficult read. Like Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. Even there, the impetus to read the book would be to enjoy reading it, not to gain some accomplishment. Ditto for movies. I saw Pacific Rim and I enjoyed it, and I'll happily tell people about it, but I'm not proud of it.
For some reason, some people take pride in having played some* MMORPG. Not pride in beating a particularly tough encounter, or getting a large number of kills in PvP, pride in just having played the game. If the only real difference between older games and newer games is the time investment, then obviously that is the source of their pride.
The first problem is taking pride in a game that's designed for you to win. One may be designed to take longer to win than another, but the central design principal of both games is that eventually everyone can be a winner in some way. The second problem is identifying the time sink aspects of the game as the part that divides the 'winners' from the 'losers'. If the only difference between game "A" and game "B" is the amount of time something takes, then the only thing being tested is one's ability to wait. People seem to be taking an inordinate amount of pride in their patience.
* Yes, I used 'some' a lot there. It got the idea across.
**Oddly enough, I do take pride in having finished Silent Hill 2, since a lot of people didn't finish the game. I don't think this is the same thing as being proud of just playing the game though, and that's what it seems people are doing. They are just proud they played the game.
To clarify, "pride" wasn't the ideal term for what I was trying to communicate. I mostly meant "sense of achievement" but wanted a shorter word to keep an already-long post from being longer. Pride works, and does mean a sense of achievement, but it also carries some additional baggage that I hadn't intended.
Because you're right, people do have pride for the sorts of things you describe. It's just not the same thing as the sense that what you did required skill, and was a genuine achievement. (Because even a "hard" book doesn't require much skill to read.)
In the context of pride, you're right that many take pride in simply participating in an MMORPG. I think this is simple human instinct, the same way that most humans instinctively feel pride at being American, or being from the city whose team won the Superbowl, or being part of a certain minority group. I tend not to do much of this personally; if my city's team wins the Superbowl I know I didn't do anything to make it happen and that realization seems to turn off any sense of pride over it.
Similarly I'm not sure that I take pride for having played many early games (it usually takes on a slightly different form, "I enjoyed this great old game, and you would enjoy it too! Try it!")
But I definitely do take pride for my genuinely skillful accomplishments in games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Hmm SWTORs problem was / is the skill delay lag, stiff animations, lifeless world ... only IMO of course. Playing PvP with skill delay lags, which got better since release but are still there is just unfun. Camera is another problem in SWTOR but dungeons in the game are real fun and graphics are nice too.
It just lacks the smoothness in controls and animations IMO and the FPS drops here and there in zones which are annoying.
They shouldnt have put so much effort into voice acting, instead they could have make space missions better. Wouldnt it be awesome to fly yourself in these missions ? Maybe even as a group with friends ? Well it would have been better than having every side quest voice acted which is just annoying.
Game could have been so much better and still could but I dont think they will put real effort into it anymore, what a shame.
TOR's biggest problem is that it is a MMO. If it is developed as an online RPG (i.e. the next KOTOR), it would have been a huge success.
Originally posted by Beatnik59 Look y'all, I've played those old "grindheavy, hardcore, timesink" games we like to bash. And you know what? I met housewives there. I met grandparents there. I met lawyers and accountants there. And you know, they didn't play much....and that was okay for them.They were satisfied dancing in the cantina for an hour or so. Or stocking some supplies on the market. Or designing a new outfit. Or RPing at the town.Because, for adults, it's not about the level bar, or the loots, or the quest chains. It's about having a purpose, having a source of meaning, and having a platform for self-expression.That's why Farmville is making a killing with the demographics this genre has left behind...specifically those "busy adults" that don't have a lot of time. Because if they are truly busy, and truly adults, they are above such juvenile stuff like levels and loot. What they do want is something meaningful, something they can create.Which is why these "casual friendly" MMOs that make leveling and loot acquisition a priority offer nothing for them. Because it was never about the loots and levels. It was about context and meaning...the very things that has been taken out in favor of "fast action combat" and "no timesinks between Quest A and B."
Brilliant.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Comments
*****
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
"Lord of the Rings"? Pfaaah! I read the "Simarillion"!
Most people read books for the sake of reading books. If there was some sense of pride, it would have been in reading something that is a difficult read. Like Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. Even there, the impetus to read the book would be to enjoy reading it, not to gain some accomplishment. Ditto for movies. I saw Pacific Rim and I enjoyed it, and I'll happily tell people about it, but I'm not proud of it.
For some reason, some people take pride in having played some* MMORPG. Not pride in beating a particularly tough encounter, or getting a large number of kills in PvP, pride in just having played the game. If the only real difference between older games and newer games is the time investment, then obviously that is the source of their pride.
The first problem is taking pride in a game that's designed for you to win. One may be designed to take longer to win than another, but the central design principal of both games is that eventually everyone can be a winner in some way. The second problem is identifying the time sink aspects of the game as the part that divides the 'winners' from the 'losers'. If the only difference between game "A" and game "B" is the amount of time something takes, then the only thing being tested is one's ability to wait. People seem to be taking an inordinate amount of pride in their patience.
* Yes, I used 'some' a lot there. It got the idea across.
**
Oddly enough, I do take pride in having finished Silent Hill 2, since a lot of people didn't finish the game. I don't think this is the same thing as being proud of just playing the game though, and that's what it seems people are doing. They are just proud they played the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
...
For some reason, some people take pride in having played some* MMORPG. Not pride in beating a particularly tough encounter, or getting a large number of kills in PvP, pride in just having played the game. If the only real difference between older games and newer games is the time investment, then obviously that is the source of their pride.
The first problem is taking pride in a game that's designed for you to win. One may be designed to take longer to win than another, but the central design principal of both games is that eventually everyone can be a winner in some way. The second problem is identifying the time sink aspects of the game as the part that divides the 'winners' from the 'losers'. If the only difference between game "A" and game "B" is the amount of time something takes, then the only thing being tested is one's ability to wait. People seem to be taking an inordinate amount of pride in their patience.
...
So, are you trying to say you merely want to play an MMORPG for "pride"? I don't accrue any amount of pride when playing an MMO (besides maybe when my character finally looks as badass as I wanted and I get an occassional compliment), but it was never about pride. It's about using your time or maybe I should use the more popularized term on this thread "time-sinking" effectively where I found it most enjoyable and fun.
Ultimately I agree with Axehilt first of all that every game/hobby is a timesink and its inevitable and I already pointed this out earlier. Making it sound like you are wasting your time while playing a video game is absolutely absurd to say because the whole purpose of video games is to effectively waste time in the first place hence why we call things like this pastimes.
I think your argument, lizardbones, fall short because it really only applies to people that actually care about pride which I would like to assume is few and far between. What are you arguing here, oh this took more skill than that one? I was more patient than the next guy in accomplishing a task?
You know you use silent hill 2 as an example of the latter question but its the same exact sort of "pride" that someone might take in completing 100% exploration in a world because they didn't give up as easily. It's almost likes saying "Well in my experiences in games, this negative bias I have doesn't apply to me but to everyone else, this totally does." Which is completely unfair because you merely boosted your experience and trivialized everyone elses over pretty much the same issue.
What you did with Silent Hill 2 is the same thing as what anyone else has done to complete a "challenging" task, they spent more time on it and constantly failed until they succeeded, just like anything else. Your opinion comes off as a little hypocritical IMO.
To clarify, "pride" wasn't the ideal term for what I was trying to communicate. I mostly meant "sense of achievement" but wanted a shorter word to keep an already-long post from being longer. Pride works, and does mean a sense of achievement, but it also carries some additional baggage that I hadn't intended.
Because you're right, people do have pride for the sorts of things you describe. It's just not the same thing as the sense that what you did required skill, and was a genuine achievement. (Because even a "hard" book doesn't require much skill to read.)
In the context of pride, you're right that many take pride in simply participating in an MMORPG. I think this is simple human instinct, the same way that most humans instinctively feel pride at being American, or being from the city whose team won the Superbowl, or being part of a certain minority group. I tend not to do much of this personally; if my city's team wins the Superbowl I know I didn't do anything to make it happen and that realization seems to turn off any sense of pride over it.
Similarly I'm not sure that I take pride for having played many early games (it usually takes on a slightly different form, "I enjoyed this great old game, and you would enjoy it too! Try it!")
But I definitely do take pride for my genuinely skillful accomplishments in games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
TOR's biggest problem is that it is a MMO. If it is developed as an online RPG (i.e. the next KOTOR), it would have been a huge success.
Brilliant.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit