Originally posted by Matee i would still rather devote my few hours of free time in a weak to play something for many seem as hardcore, deep, immersing, punishing for mistakes without any haste or race mentality.without any need to even achieve of something in this one short session of play timeslowly with my own pace and that would be more gratifying for me then this new "era" MMOGs achievements all together...
Excellent post, and I agree. BTW, don't feed the trolls .
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal People assume that you want a grind because you mention old school. UO was minimal grind and what was could be macro'd while you slept. I find quest hub themepark MMORPGs to be very tedious and they're not hard at all, just repetitive, stale and boring.
Yep
Originally posted by Holophonist The problem is modern themepark mmos are the epitome of tedium. They keep people playing with grinds and carrots on sticks.
Exactly. I spent 8,000 hours in EQ and none of it felt grindy; I spent three months grinding vanguard quest hubs and got sick of it; same with Pirates of the Burning Sea.
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
Originally posted by lizardbones What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
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
Originally posted by lizardbones What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
What funny is that no one is forcing you to quest grind. You can always just grind mobs like back in the day but instead you want faster progression. Therefore, just like the people and game that you complaining about (the entitled) you're the problem not the answer. See where we can go with this asinine conversation?
I've been playing MMORPGs for 15 years and in my opinion there is much more to do now then before but like anything we all get burnt out. That's most of the problems with this site. It's filled with burnt out junkies. Take a break people!
MMO's today are more akin to the Music Industry of the late 90's and early 2000. Producer's saw hits by new comers and then they tried to create a formula based around what they saw in order to make money. Take .... singer, mix him with .... sound and ... guitarist and give them ..... songs to play = instant platinum album.
MMO companies are trying to do the exact thing, create a perfect formula to separate the masses from their money. EA is a perfect example of this, only they lack the patience to carry anything through a full developmental cycle.
Rift is also a good example of this. Trion took every known feature that works in modern MMO's and slapped them all together into one game. So it is a stagnant masterpiece of used features. Decent game, but nothing in it is original.
In the Old MMO's, it was before any formula was established or even thought of as needed. So most of them have various 'new for the time' features that were purely experimental, lots worked, lots failed.
Times change, the formula keeps changing as hype does, but one thing stays constant, the companies need to make money, so they are always trying out the next tweak to rake in more dough.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Any PC FPS game is mechanically difficult to anyone new to gaming. We are not talking about the amount of proficiency needed though. We are talking about complexity and depth.
Games like volleyball and ice hockey require a certain amount of skill before you can start having half decent matches. In contrast, anyone can catch a ball and run in football or kick one in soccer. That doesn't make ice hockey and volleyball deeper or more complex than football or soccer.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Mechanically difficult? You'll have to explain that.
Mechanically there is nothing difficult to most people about using a keyboard and mouse.
Difficulty would be in the puzzle to solve, the boss your fighting. Difficult is in the cognitive and/or skill components of the task.
No game is mechanically difficult.
There are some parts of games that are take more skill and require some cognitive abiliites. The morse code quest in TSW was dificult - unless you downloaded a translator.
Playing skyrim with mods can make the game exceptionally difficult.
Both games allow me to accomplish something in 5 minutes. They are very casual. Yet they can be quite difficult as well.
Casual is how long it takes to do things. (note this is not how long it takes to finish things - that is a different argument)
Difficulty is about how hard, challenging the task is.
They are 2 different terms and unrelated.
That you can't find a game today where it is both does not mean they are related. It just means that devs have decided to make them both easy and casual.
The overall quest may be very difficult, and may end up taking a long time, but if I can make incremental but significant progress in half an hour. Then it is both casual and difficult.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
I'd say most puzzle games that might involve some twitch skills can be mechanically difficult while being casual. Tetris for example. It takes quite a bit of mechanical skill to rapidly identify current and potential problems, develop multiple strategies to over come them and adapt those strategies based on the computer's RNG and of course the ability to view, interpret and act on these concepts.
Sure, in the first few levels of the game it's quite slow and simple, but it get challenging quickly.
EVE is a game that is mechanically simple while being hardcore (it's primary barrier to entry is knowledge - remove the knowledge requirement and you have a fairly simplistic game).
Chess is mechanically simple and hardcore, complex and deep
Dark Souls is mechanically difficult (not really IMO) and hardcore, simple, and shallow
Uncharted is mechanically simple and casual, but it has a lot of depth with low complexity
Devil May Cry is mechanically difficult, hardcore, complex but lacks depth.
Magic the Gathering is mechanically simple, casual & hardcore, complex with depth
Skyrim is mechanically difficult (I'd this is more due to a horrible ability switching interface and UI than it is due to challenge), casual, and simple with depth
the only real thing i miss from days of yore is the virtual world. i really thought that 15 years down the road our virtual worlds would be so highly evolved that they'd be amazing.
instead im staring at indie dev after indie dev on Steam make platform sidescrollers cuz its hip.
YES! Thank you for this perfectly simple example. The gaming industry as a whole is not what or where I thought it would be. By and large I feel we have artificially plateaued in both deliverables and expectations.
What funny is that no one is forcing you to quest grind. You can always just grind mobs like back in the day but instead you want faster progression. Therefore, just like the people and game that you complaining about (the entitled) you're the problem not the answer. See where we can go with this asinine conversation?
I've been playing MMORPGs for 15 years and in my opinion there is much more to do now then before but like anything we all get burnt out. That's most of the problems with this site. It's filled with burnt out junkies. Take a break people!
I've been playing MMORPG's since meridian59 but instead of seeing more things to do in today's MMO's I actually feel there is allot less to do in MMO's.
classes
professions
ability's
different races
world-feel
none-combat
journey
freedom
talking/chatting
immersion
Just a few point I feel are less in today's MMO's.
Thought point 10 is abit shifty as I can immerse myself within plenty of theme park MMO's. But the immersion factor when having a community, player created economy and having every other point I just made just feels so much more immersive then what I get today. Yet I still enjoy some of today's MMO's but not the way I would have loved them.
Many MMO's of today consist of combat and tiny bits of non-combat activities. I can't max level just being a fisher man, can't max level just to be a crafter or even a pure harvester. Before you asume that is all I want let me tell you I like combat.Though combat in other genre's I do enjoy allot more. There for my main reason for playing MMORPG's never has been combat. It's all the other things that make the game world more a virtual world which obviously has combat but should have so many other and different activities fo players to engage into.
So I wonder why some people feel today's MMO's have more options. Because perhaps I am trying or playing the wrong MMO/rpg's.
I am not agreeing with OP either because his post is not relevant right now because I do see new and upcoming games atleast trying to offer us more then what we have today. However I would have agreed completely if this post OP made was made 2 years ago.
waaaait a sec... did he just say everquest was not produced for profit?
sorry to burst your bubble. but profit makes the world go round. EQ (as any other game) was designed to attract customers, and make em pay to play. what changed is the way those payments work.
i don't see a problem in that ^^ every developer has the right to decide how to make profit - but ALL of them want profit. believe me ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I think that SRPG is going to be the next big thing, with the new trend of Open World, Morally Grey decisions and shaping the world around you. SRPG will start to take over the hearts and time of the gamers that seeks Virtual worlds.
Then as SRPG gets bigger, MMO will start to take the ideas developed from those games and finally become what many wanted, an Pen and Paper RPG that involves the gamers of the world.
I will give it 5 years.
Especially with the VR and Motion Capture becoming an reality. the Next age of MMORPG will be a sight to behold.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
An example of depth abandoned by MMORPGs. I mean look at factions in EQ. EQ factions made some difference, as did racial choices, religion and class to how NPCs treated you. Every race had a starting area and there was no all in together now alliances. Look at WoW factions. You pretty much have hard coded factions outside of the grind for a few ponies and quest.
Could you imagine your paladin npcs turning around and beating the crap out of allied warlocks in WoW? Even many NPCs shunning them for demonic summoning and not selling to them? Life as a troll shadowknight in EQ was a life being hated and even shunned by your dark elf buddies to a degree. He my dark elf wizard was killed by his own guild for testing what an AoE spell did in the hall.
Originally posted by Arclan Originally posted by lizardbones What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
If people aren't chatting, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't. If players don't want to spend most of their time chatting with other players, why would a developer continue to use game mechanics that forces players to spend most of their time chatting?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Any PC FPS game is mechanically difficult to anyone new to gaming. We are not talking about the amount of proficiency needed though. We are talking about complexity and depth.
Games like volleyball and ice hockey require a certain amount of skill before you can start having half decent matches. In contrast, anyone can catch a ball and run in football or kick one in soccer. That doesn't make ice hockey and volleyball deeper or more complex than football or soccer.
Well "we" were talking about complexity and depth in a different conversation, which isn't the one you quoted. The one you quoted involves Venge and myself talking about the relationship between casual friendliness of a game and difficulty.
Yes, a lot of FPS games are mechanically difficult. In fact, as you say, all of could be considered mechanically difficult to SOMEBODY. That's why you have to compare them to other things. For instance, TFC is the more difficult, less casual version of TF2. See? The game gets mechanically easier and more casual at the same time. Starcraft 2 is both more difficult and more casual friendly than its predecessor, broodwar.
Originally posted by lizardbones What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
If people aren't chatting, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't. If players don't want to spend most of their time chatting with other players, why would a developer continue to use game mechanics that forces players to spend most of their time chatting?
That is not a game, that is a chat-room.
And for those who are very literally in interpreting what MMORPG means .. i want to remind them that the G stands for GAME, not chat-room.
Originally posted by lizardbones What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
If people aren't chatting, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't. If players don't want to spend most of their time chatting with other players, why would a developer continue to use game mechanics that forces players to spend most of their time chatting?
That is not a game, that is a chat-room.
And for those who are very literally in interpreting what MMORPG means .. i want to remind them that the G stands for GAME, not chat-room.
So ?
Many people play " multiplayer" games for the human interaction. Part of that is talking to other people. Last time I looked one of those M stood for that.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Mechanically difficult? You'll have to explain that.
Mechanically there is nothing difficult to most people about using a keyboard and mouse.
Difficulty would be in the puzzle to solve, the boss your fighting. Difficult is in the cognitive and/or skill components of the task.
No game is mechanically difficult.
There are some parts of games that are take more skill and require some cognitive abiliites. The morse code quest in TSW was dificult - unless you downloaded a translator.
Playing skyrim with mods can make the game exceptionally difficult.
Both games allow me to accomplish something in 5 minutes. They are very casual. Yet they can be quite difficult as well.
Casual is how long it takes to do things. (note this is not how long it takes to finish things - that is a different argument)
Difficulty is about how hard, challenging the task is.
They are 2 different terms and unrelated.
That you can't find a game today where it is both does not mean they are related. It just means that devs have decided to make them both easy and casual.
The overall quest may be very difficult, and may end up taking a long time, but if I can make incremental but significant progress in half an hour. Then it is both casual and difficult.
You're just stating your definition of casual and then acting like it's true. If casual simply means how long it takes to do things, then I'll pose to you the same comparison I posed to Quirhid: SC2 vs LoL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with those two games but LoL matches are typically longer than SC2 matches... does that mean SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL? Because by your definition, it seems like that's the position you'd have to take. However it would be an absolutely absurd thing to say that SC2 is more casual than LoL to anybody familiar with these games.
Casual friendly simply means how much the game appeals to casual players. What you and Quirhid are doing is making up a strict definition of the term (playtime required per session, paraphrased) and then using that to prove your own point. There probably are upper limits on playtime that casual players would allow in their games, but that doesn't mean that there's a linnear relationship between playtime per session and casual friendliness. It also doesn't mean it's the only factor that a casual gamer takes into account when picking/sticking with a game.
Also a clarification on mechanical difficulty. When I say mechanically difficult, I'm talking about the difficulty of a task that doesn't include theory. To put it simply: mouse/keyboard accuracy and speed. I specifically say mechanically difficult because people in this thread have expressed opposition in using "word" to describe things that may just be tedious.
Originally posted by lizardbones What's the difference between quest grinds and mob grinds?
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
If people aren't chatting, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't. If players don't want to spend most of their time chatting with other players, why would a developer continue to use game mechanics that forces players to spend most of their time chatting?
He's not saying they don't want to spend their time chatting. He's saying mob grinds are typically in one spot for a long period of time. There is also often downtime in between spawns so it leads to conversations and socializing. Whereas with quest grinding you're going through content, entering/leaving areas, etc.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Mechanically difficult? You'll have to explain that.
Mechanically there is nothing difficult to most people about using a keyboard and mouse.
Difficulty would be in the puzzle to solve, the boss your fighting. Difficult is in the cognitive and/or skill components of the task.
No game is mechanically difficult.
There are some parts of games that are take more skill and require some cognitive abiliites. The morse code quest in TSW was dificult - unless you downloaded a translator.
Playing skyrim with mods can make the game exceptionally difficult.
Both games allow me to accomplish something in 5 minutes. They are very casual. Yet they can be quite difficult as well.
Casual is how long it takes to do things. (note this is not how long it takes to finish things - that is a different argument)
Difficulty is about how hard, challenging the task is.
They are 2 different terms and unrelated.
That you can't find a game today where it is both does not mean they are related. It just means that devs have decided to make them both easy and casual.
The overall quest may be very difficult, and may end up taking a long time, but if I can make incremental but significant progress in half an hour. Then it is both casual and difficult.
You're just stating your definition of casual and then acting like it's true. If casual simply means how long it takes to do things, then I'll pose to you the same comparison I posed to Quirhid: SC2 vs LoL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with those two games but LoL matches are typically longer than SC2 matches... does that mean SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL? Because by your definition, it seems like that's the position you'd have to take. However it would be an absolutely absurd thing to say that SC2 is more casual than LoL to anybody familiar with these games.
Casual friendly simply means how much the game appeals to casual players. What you and Quirhid are doing is making up a strict definition of the term (playtime required per session, paraphrased) and then using that to prove your own point. There probably are upper limits on playtime that casual players would allow in their games, but that doesn't mean that there's a linnear relationship between playtime per session and casual friendliness. It also doesn't mean it's the only factor that a casual gamer takes into account when picking/sticking with a game.
Also a clarification on mechanical difficulty. When I say mechanically difficult, I'm talking about the difficulty of a task that doesn't include theory. To put it simply: mouse/keyboard accuracy and speed. I specifically say mechanically difficult because people in this thread have expressed opposition in using "word" to describe things that may just be tedious.
I would say that it is not us making up a strict definition of casual, it is you.
It just refers to how long it takes to do something meaningfull. Not how hard the game is, or how long the whole game takes.
If SC2 takes less time than LoL, despite being harder then yes it is more casual friendly. and If you say SC2 is definately not more casual, despite taking less time, then again that is you using your definiti and equating difficulty with casual. Difficult is not related to casual, time is. Nothing to do with the actual difficulty of the game.
Not how much it appeals to casual players, just how long it takes to do something meaningfull.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
I'd say most puzzle games that might involve some twitch skills can be mechanically difficult while being casual. Tetris for example. It takes quite a bit of mechanical skill to rapidly identify current and potential problems, develop multiple strategies to over come them and adapt those strategies based on the computer's RNG and of course the ability to view, interpret and act on these concepts.
Sure, in the first few levels of the game it's quite slow and simple, but it get challenging quickly.
EVE is a game that is mechanically simple while being hardcore (it's primary barrier to entry is knowledge - remove the knowledge requirement and you have a fairly simplistic game).
Chess is mechanically simple and hardcore, complex and deep
Dark Souls is mechanically difficult (not really IMO) and hardcore, simple, and shallow
Uncharted is mechanically simple and casual, but it has a lot of depth with low complexity
Devil May Cry is mechanically difficult, hardcore, complex but lacks depth.
Magic the Gathering is mechanically simple, casual & hardcore, complex with depth
Skyrim is mechanically difficult (I'd this is more due to a horrible ability switching interface and UI than it is due to challenge), casual, and simple with depth
Mmmm yeah tetris is weird because the difficulty changes throughout the game. Tetris in the first few minutes probably wouldn't be considered mechanically difficult, and is casual. The difficult part of the game probably wouldn't be considered casual. Like if they released a game which was Tetris but like 20 minutes in or whatever... that probably wouldn't be considered very casual friendly.
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The problem is that there was growth in the playerbase. That's not going to be sustainable so it's not just business as usual. It's not just the industry changing in the same way it has always changed and the same way it always will change, because that wouldnt be sustainable.
A lot of our concerns really boil down to the genre's distinct shift away from niche and towards mainstream. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but you can't argue that it's a fundamental change.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Mechanically difficult? You'll have to explain that.
Mechanically there is nothing difficult to most people about using a keyboard and mouse.
Difficulty would be in the puzzle to solve, the boss your fighting. Difficult is in the cognitive and/or skill components of the task.
No game is mechanically difficult.
There are some parts of games that are take more skill and require some cognitive abiliites. The morse code quest in TSW was dificult - unless you downloaded a translator.
Playing skyrim with mods can make the game exceptionally difficult.
Both games allow me to accomplish something in 5 minutes. They are very casual. Yet they can be quite difficult as well.
Casual is how long it takes to do things. (note this is not how long it takes to finish things - that is a different argument)
Difficulty is about how hard, challenging the task is.
They are 2 different terms and unrelated.
That you can't find a game today where it is both does not mean they are related. It just means that devs have decided to make them both easy and casual.
The overall quest may be very difficult, and may end up taking a long time, but if I can make incremental but significant progress in half an hour. Then it is both casual and difficult.
You're just stating your definition of casual and then acting like it's true. If casual simply means how long it takes to do things, then I'll pose to you the same comparison I posed to Quirhid: SC2 vs LoL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with those two games but LoL matches are typically longer than SC2 matches... does that mean SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL? Because by your definition, it seems like that's the position you'd have to take. However it would be an absolutely absurd thing to say that SC2 is more casual than LoL to anybody familiar with these games.
Casual friendly simply means how much the game appeals to casual players. What you and Quirhid are doing is making up a strict definition of the term (playtime required per session, paraphrased) and then using that to prove your own point. There probably are upper limits on playtime that casual players would allow in their games, but that doesn't mean that there's a linnear relationship between playtime per session and casual friendliness. It also doesn't mean it's the only factor that a casual gamer takes into account when picking/sticking with a game.
Also a clarification on mechanical difficulty. When I say mechanically difficult, I'm talking about the difficulty of a task that doesn't include theory. To put it simply: mouse/keyboard accuracy and speed. I specifically say mechanically difficult because people in this thread have expressed opposition in using "word" to describe things that may just be tedious.
I would say that it is not us making up a strict definition of casual, it is you.
It just refers to how long it takes to do something meaningfull. Not how hard the game is, or how long the whole game takes.
If SC2 takes less time than LoL, despite being harder then yes it is more casual friendly. Nothing to do with the actual difficulty of the game.
Not how much it appeals to casual players, just how long it takes to do something meaningfull.
How am I making up a strict definition when my definition includes yours PLUS more? I'm saying the definition is how much casual players enjoy the game. That could be length of play session, difficulty, aesthetics etc. You guys are saying it's just time to achieve something. Yours is the strict one, it seems.
The fact that you're admitting that by your definition SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL really shows me how wrong your definition is. And this is what I mean by you making up a definition and then using that definition as proof. I'm observing the end result which is how many casual players are playing each game. I'm also observing what the community says about each game. OVERWHELMINGLY people admit that LoL is a far more casual game than SC2. The fact that your definition describes SC2 as being more casual shows that your definition is wrong.
You're just saying that casual friendly = how long it takes to do something. What it literally means is how much it appeals to casual players. You don't think a casual player would care about things other than how long it takes to do something? What about a game that is incredibly frustratingly hard? you don't think a casual player might be averse to playing that game?
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
Complexity and depth are related yes, as they both involve decision making. Not all complex games are deep though.
Casual and difficult are not related - at all.
Any particular reason you think that? It seems obvious and intuitive to me. I can't think of a game that is mechanically difficult and considered casual.
Mechanically difficult? You'll have to explain that.
Mechanically there is nothing difficult to most people about using a keyboard and mouse.
Difficulty would be in the puzzle to solve, the boss your fighting. Difficult is in the cognitive and/or skill components of the task.
No game is mechanically difficult.
There are some parts of games that are take more skill and require some cognitive abiliites. The morse code quest in TSW was dificult - unless you downloaded a translator.
Playing skyrim with mods can make the game exceptionally difficult.
Both games allow me to accomplish something in 5 minutes. They are very casual. Yet they can be quite difficult as well.
Casual is how long it takes to do things. (note this is not how long it takes to finish things - that is a different argument)
Difficulty is about how hard, challenging the task is.
They are 2 different terms and unrelated.
That you can't find a game today where it is both does not mean they are related. It just means that devs have decided to make them both easy and casual.
The overall quest may be very difficult, and may end up taking a long time, but if I can make incremental but significant progress in half an hour. Then it is both casual and difficult.
You're just stating your definition of casual and then acting like it's true. If casual simply means how long it takes to do things, then I'll pose to you the same comparison I posed to Quirhid: SC2 vs LoL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with those two games but LoL matches are typically longer than SC2 matches... does that mean SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL? Because by your definition, it seems like that's the position you'd have to take. However it would be an absolutely absurd thing to say that SC2 is more casual than LoL to anybody familiar with these games.
Casual friendly simply means how much the game appeals to casual players. What you and Quirhid are doing is making up a strict definition of the term (playtime required per session, paraphrased) and then using that to prove your own point. There probably are upper limits on playtime that casual players would allow in their games, but that doesn't mean that there's a linnear relationship between playtime per session and casual friendliness. It also doesn't mean it's the only factor that a casual gamer takes into account when picking/sticking with a game.
Also a clarification on mechanical difficulty. When I say mechanically difficult, I'm talking about the difficulty of a task that doesn't include theory. To put it simply: mouse/keyboard accuracy and speed. I specifically say mechanically difficult because people in this thread have expressed opposition in using "word" to describe things that may just be tedious.
I would say that it is not us making up a strict definition of casual, it is you.
It just refers to how long it takes to do something meaningfull. Not how hard the game is, or how long the whole game takes.
If SC2 takes less time than LoL, despite being harder then yes it is more casual friendly. Nothing to do with the actual difficulty of the game.
Not how much it appeals to casual players, just how long it takes to do something meaningfull.
How am I making up a strict definition when my definition includes yours PLUS more? I'm saying the definition is how much casual players enjoy the game. That could be length of play session, difficulty, aesthetics etc. You guys are saying it's just time to achieve something. Yours is the strict one, it seems.
The fact that you're admitting that by your definition SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL really shows me how wrong your definition is. And this is what I mean by you making up a definition and then using that definition as proof. I'm observing the end result which is how many casual players are playing each game. I'm also observing what the community says about each game. OVERWHELMINGLY people admit that LoL is a far more casual game than SC2. The fact that your definition describes SC2 as being more casual shows that your definition is wrong.
You're just saying that casual friendly = how long it takes to do something. What it literally means is how much it appeals to casual players. You don't think a casual player would care about things other than how long it takes to do something? What about a game that is incredibly frustratingly hard? you don't think a casual player might be averse to playing that game?
How are you making up a strict definition when yours includes mine plus more? That makes it different from mine - therefore you are making up your own definition. Pretty simple.
If SC2 requires less time it is more casual, nothing about that states difficulty, nothing about that implies how hard or easy the game is. If you feel otherwise that is your personal definition.
Your fact based on your obseravation and what you see people saying... is not fact.
Casual has never meant how much it appeals to casual players, ever, not once. It just means how long it takes to do something. Thats it.
Anything else is just yours.
Incredibly frustrating and hard, but can still be done in short periods. Yes still casual. Nothing about who it appeals to.
A casual player is not defined as casual because they do not like difficulty, that is your definition. A casual player is defined, by most, as someone who doesn't play a lot. Again only time, not difficulty.
Nothing to do with difficulty. Only time.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Excellent post, and I agree. BTW, don't feed the trolls
.
Yep
Exactly. I spent 8,000 hours in EQ and none of it felt grindy; I spent three months grinding vanguard quest hubs and got sick of it; same with Pirates of the Burning Sea.
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
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
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
What funny is that no one is forcing you to quest grind. You can always just grind mobs like back in the day but instead you want faster progression. Therefore, just like the people and game that you complaining about (the entitled) you're the problem not the answer. See where we can go with this asinine conversation?
I've been playing MMORPGs for 15 years and in my opinion there is much more to do now then before but like anything we all get burnt out. That's most of the problems with this site. It's filled with burnt out junkies. Take a break people!
MMO's today are more akin to the Music Industry of the late 90's and early 2000. Producer's saw hits by new comers and then they tried to create a formula based around what they saw in order to make money. Take .... singer, mix him with .... sound and ... guitarist and give them ..... songs to play = instant platinum album.
MMO companies are trying to do the exact thing, create a perfect formula to separate the masses from their money. EA is a perfect example of this, only they lack the patience to carry anything through a full developmental cycle.
Rift is also a good example of this. Trion took every known feature that works in modern MMO's and slapped them all together into one game. So it is a stagnant masterpiece of used features. Decent game, but nothing in it is original.
In the Old MMO's, it was before any formula was established or even thought of as needed. So most of them have various 'new for the time' features that were purely experimental, lots worked, lots failed.
Times change, the formula keeps changing as hype does, but one thing stays constant, the companies need to make money, so they are always trying out the next tweak to rake in more dough.
Any PC FPS game is mechanically difficult to anyone new to gaming. We are not talking about the amount of proficiency needed though. We are talking about complexity and depth.
Games like volleyball and ice hockey require a certain amount of skill before you can start having half decent matches. In contrast, anyone can catch a ball and run in football or kick one in soccer. That doesn't make ice hockey and volleyball deeper or more complex than football or soccer.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Mechanically difficult? You'll have to explain that.
Mechanically there is nothing difficult to most people about using a keyboard and mouse.
Difficulty would be in the puzzle to solve, the boss your fighting. Difficult is in the cognitive and/or skill components of the task.
No game is mechanically difficult.
There are some parts of games that are take more skill and require some cognitive abiliites. The morse code quest in TSW was dificult - unless you downloaded a translator.
Playing skyrim with mods can make the game exceptionally difficult.
Both games allow me to accomplish something in 5 minutes. They are very casual. Yet they can be quite difficult as well.
Casual is how long it takes to do things. (note this is not how long it takes to finish things - that is a different argument)
Difficulty is about how hard, challenging the task is.
They are 2 different terms and unrelated.
That you can't find a game today where it is both does not mean they are related. It just means that devs have decided to make them both easy and casual.
The overall quest may be very difficult, and may end up taking a long time, but if I can make incremental but significant progress in half an hour. Then it is both casual and difficult.
I'd say most puzzle games that might involve some twitch skills can be mechanically difficult while being casual. Tetris for example. It takes quite a bit of mechanical skill to rapidly identify current and potential problems, develop multiple strategies to over come them and adapt those strategies based on the computer's RNG and of course the ability to view, interpret and act on these concepts.
Sure, in the first few levels of the game it's quite slow and simple, but it get challenging quickly.
EVE is a game that is mechanically simple while being hardcore (it's primary barrier to entry is knowledge - remove the knowledge requirement and you have a fairly simplistic game).
Chess is mechanically simple and hardcore, complex and deep
Dark Souls is mechanically difficult (not really IMO) and hardcore, simple, and shallow
Uncharted is mechanically simple and casual, but it has a lot of depth with low complexity
Devil May Cry is mechanically difficult, hardcore, complex but lacks depth.
Magic the Gathering is mechanically simple, casual & hardcore, complex with depth
Skyrim is mechanically difficult (I'd this is more due to a horrible ability switching interface and UI than it is due to challenge), casual, and simple with depth
YES! Thank you for this perfectly simple example. The gaming industry as a whole is not what or where I thought it would be. By and large I feel we have artificially plateaued in both deliverables and expectations.
I've been playing MMORPG's since meridian59 but instead of seeing more things to do in today's MMO's I actually feel there is allot less to do in MMO's.
Many MMO's of today consist of combat and tiny bits of non-combat activities. I can't max level just being a fisher man, can't max level just to be a crafter or even a pure harvester. Before you asume that is all I want let me tell you I like combat.Though combat in other genre's I do enjoy allot more. There for my main reason for playing MMORPG's never has been combat. It's all the other things that make the game world more a virtual world which obviously has combat but should have so many other and different activities fo players to engage into.
So I wonder why some people feel today's MMO's have more options. Because perhaps I am trying or playing the wrong MMO/rpg's.
I am not agreeing with OP either because his post is not relevant right now because I do see new and upcoming games atleast trying to offer us more then what we have today. However I would have agreed completely if this post OP made was made 2 years ago.
waaaait a sec... did he just say everquest was not produced for profit?
sorry to burst your bubble. but profit makes the world go round. EQ (as any other game) was designed to attract customers, and make em pay to play. what changed is the way those payments work.
i don't see a problem in that ^^ every developer has the right to decide how to make profit - but ALL of them want profit. believe me ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I think that SRPG is going to be the next big thing, with the new trend of Open World, Morally Grey decisions and shaping the world around you. SRPG will start to take over the hearts and time of the gamers that seeks Virtual worlds.
Then as SRPG gets bigger, MMO will start to take the ideas developed from those games and finally become what many wanted, an Pen and Paper RPG that involves the gamers of the world.
I will give it 5 years.
Especially with the VR and Motion Capture becoming an reality. the Next age of MMORPG will be a sight to behold.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Could you imagine your paladin npcs turning around and beating the crap out of allied warlocks in WoW? Even many NPCs shunning them for demonic summoning and not selling to them? Life as a troll shadowknight in EQ was a life being hated and even shunned by your dark elf buddies to a degree. He my dark elf wizard was killed by his own guild for testing what an AoE spell did in the hall.
In mob grinds, you spend most of the time chatting with other players. In quest grinds, you spend the entire time being led around by your nose which leaves no time to chat.
If people aren't chatting, it's because they don't want to, not because they can't. If players don't want to spend most of their time chatting with other players, why would a developer continue to use game mechanics that forces players to spend most of their time chatting?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well "we" were talking about complexity and depth in a different conversation, which isn't the one you quoted. The one you quoted involves Venge and myself talking about the relationship between casual friendliness of a game and difficulty.
Yes, a lot of FPS games are mechanically difficult. In fact, as you say, all of could be considered mechanically difficult to SOMEBODY. That's why you have to compare them to other things. For instance, TFC is the more difficult, less casual version of TF2. See? The game gets mechanically easier and more casual at the same time. Starcraft 2 is both more difficult and more casual friendly than its predecessor, broodwar.
That is not a game, that is a chat-room.
And for those who are very literally in interpreting what MMORPG means .. i want to remind them that the G stands for GAME, not chat-room.
So ?
Many people play " multiplayer" games for the human interaction. Part of that is talking to other people. Last time I looked one of those M stood for that.
You're just stating your definition of casual and then acting like it's true. If casual simply means how long it takes to do things, then I'll pose to you the same comparison I posed to Quirhid: SC2 vs LoL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with those two games but LoL matches are typically longer than SC2 matches... does that mean SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL? Because by your definition, it seems like that's the position you'd have to take. However it would be an absolutely absurd thing to say that SC2 is more casual than LoL to anybody familiar with these games.
Casual friendly simply means how much the game appeals to casual players. What you and Quirhid are doing is making up a strict definition of the term (playtime required per session, paraphrased) and then using that to prove your own point. There probably are upper limits on playtime that casual players would allow in their games, but that doesn't mean that there's a linnear relationship between playtime per session and casual friendliness. It also doesn't mean it's the only factor that a casual gamer takes into account when picking/sticking with a game.
Also a clarification on mechanical difficulty. When I say mechanically difficult, I'm talking about the difficulty of a task that doesn't include theory. To put it simply: mouse/keyboard accuracy and speed. I specifically say mechanically difficult because people in this thread have expressed opposition in using "word" to describe things that may just be tedious.
He's not saying they don't want to spend their time chatting. He's saying mob grinds are typically in one spot for a long period of time. There is also often downtime in between spawns so it leads to conversations and socializing. Whereas with quest grinding you're going through content, entering/leaving areas, etc.
I would say that it is not us making up a strict definition of casual, it is you.
It just refers to how long it takes to do something meaningfull. Not how hard the game is, or how long the whole game takes.
If SC2 takes less time than LoL, despite being harder then yes it is more casual friendly. and If you say SC2 is definately not more casual, despite taking less time, then again that is you using your definiti and equating difficulty with casual. Difficult is not related to casual, time is. Nothing to do with the actual difficulty of the game.
Not how much it appeals to casual players, just how long it takes to do something meaningfull.
Mmmm yeah tetris is weird because the difficulty changes throughout the game. Tetris in the first few minutes probably wouldn't be considered mechanically difficult, and is casual. The difficult part of the game probably wouldn't be considered casual. Like if they released a game which was Tetris but like 20 minutes in or whatever... that probably wouldn't be considered very casual friendly.
I think most people would still consider it casual because it only takes 20 minutes.
If they had a version that let you jump right at higher levels, without doing the ones that are easier, it woudl be more casual because it would take less time. Again the difficulty at those levels is the same.
I think think the issue is that some people have never experienced the "shift away from nihce and towards mainstream".
It's something that I've been talkign about since I've been on this site. And it happens naturally as you get older and the things you like suddenly don't exist anymore or "become oldies" as the new "popular" trends start creeping in.
This has been happening long before any of us were born. It's just a shock to experience it ourselves.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
How am I making up a strict definition when my definition includes yours PLUS more? I'm saying the definition is how much casual players enjoy the game. That could be length of play session, difficulty, aesthetics etc. You guys are saying it's just time to achieve something. Yours is the strict one, it seems.
The fact that you're admitting that by your definition SC2 is more casual friendly than LoL really shows me how wrong your definition is. And this is what I mean by you making up a definition and then using that definition as proof. I'm observing the end result which is how many casual players are playing each game. I'm also observing what the community says about each game. OVERWHELMINGLY people admit that LoL is a far more casual game than SC2. The fact that your definition describes SC2 as being more casual shows that your definition is wrong.
You're just saying that casual friendly = how long it takes to do something. What it literally means is how much it appeals to casual players. You don't think a casual player would care about things other than how long it takes to do something? What about a game that is incredibly frustratingly hard? you don't think a casual player might be averse to playing that game?
A game that lets you jump around difficulties may appeal more to casual players. But I'm talking about a game that was just like tetris except it starts out at that more difficult level. Do you think casual players would play the original tetris more than they would play this new, harder tetris?
How are you making up a strict definition when yours includes mine plus more? That makes it different from mine - therefore you are making up your own definition. Pretty simple.
If SC2 requires less time it is more casual, nothing about that states difficulty, nothing about that implies how hard or easy the game is. If you feel otherwise that is your personal definition.
Your fact based on your obseravation and what you see people saying... is not fact.
Casual has never meant how much it appeals to casual players, ever, not once. It just means how long it takes to do something. Thats it.
Anything else is just yours.
Incredibly frustrating and hard, but can still be done in short periods. Yes still casual. Nothing about who it appeals to.
A casual player is not defined as casual because they do not like difficulty, that is your definition. A casual player is defined, by most, as someone who doesn't play a lot. Again only time, not difficulty.
Nothing to do with difficulty. Only time.