Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Inconvenience is the Key

1468910

Comments

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by XAPGames

     

    I'm not in the camp that MMORPGs should be changed from what they are.  I am in the camp that I don't like what they have become.

    Then don't play them.  It's easy.  If you don't like it, go find something else to do.

     

    I don't think that adding inconvenience will improve mass appeal games.  I do think that adding inconvenience would make the world feel more detailed for ME.

    The problem is, you don't matter.  No individual does.  Individuals do not, on their own, keep these games running.  It is only as a collective, tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions of people who are willing to put down money to play a game and keep it alive, that matter.  If you fall outside of the wishes of the majority, you don't make any  difference at all and the sooner you accept that and move on, the better.

    A niche game can add inconvenience as a feature.  I don't see it ever happening to mainstream if they continue in the current direction, which is expected.

     

    The current direction, which is making them plenty of money?  No, why would they change?

    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

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    You can stunlock D3 bosses. I consider D3 fights more interesting, and more in depth than WOW.

    What do you think fast travel is? To enable players to avoid things like 20 min boat ride. When EQ was first released, there were  boat rides (and staring at spell book) that you cannot avoid. And if it can be avoided, the inconvience no longer applies, right?

     

    It can be avoided, but it will not always be.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    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 agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.
  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Yes, excuse me for not correcting my post fast enough. P&P players were also in mind, but yes...for MUDers as well, or mainly.

    Actually, P&Pers weren't the primary market, it was geeks who had access to powerful computers and fast Internet connections that were the primary market.  Those were the only people who could play these games!  The people who tended to have those resources though were the geeks, the people who tended to play P&P roleplaying games, etc.  Therefore, companies tried to make games that would be reminiscent of those games and hopefully, bring in the geeks to play.

    Nobody made MMOs to look like P&P, just for the sake of being P&P, but to draw in the crowd they were really after.

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    Yeah ... i agree.

    It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

    Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by LauraFrost

    Current games forces you NOT to interact with other players. You're always doing tasks (quests) ALL the time from the very beginning of the game to the end. Developers want you distracted ALWAYS doing something pre-defined. You have no time to talk, you have to go to Point A to pick up the quests then point B, C, D, E then back to point A to turn in everything then move on to the next hub.

    Sorry, I can interact with anyone I want in a game, any time I want.  No one is forcing me to do anything, I can stop and smell the roses any time I wish, I can hang out in population centers and chat with anyone I feel like it, I can join a guild and do nothing but talk to people in guild chat.  There's no way for a game to stop me from doing that, even if they wanted to.  It's not like an online FPS where people are constantly shooting at you, if you want to stop, you can stop.

    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

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    Yeah ... i agree.

    It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

    Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

    If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

    From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

    Flame on!

    :)

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

    Well, why do you think that this should work and/or be a viable argument and option, but the opposite, "go play a fps" should not?

    Flame on!

    :)

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    Yeah ... i agree.

    It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

    Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

    If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

    From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Who used the argument ""the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better"? Certainly not by me.

    However, the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is financially viable" is another matter. Devs go where it makes money, not where it is "better".

    The concept of "better" is ill-defined.

  • PoporiPopori Member UncommonPosts: 334
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    Yeah ... i agree.

    It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

    Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

    If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

    From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Its not necessarily that the majority chooses it and its better, but that the majority chooses it and it makes the most money for the people making the calls in game development.  That makes it better for them.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

    Well, why do you think that this should work and/or be a viable argument and option, but the opposite, "go play a fps" should not?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Because it does not require anyone to change their game. If you say "go play a FPS" .. what if i want RPG combat?

    The suggestion "If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper" does not require you to go to another form of gameplay, which you may not like.

    In fact, it provides extra choices, which is good.

  • RossbossRossboss Member Posts: 240
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    Yeah ... i agree.

    It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

    Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

    If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

    From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Because average people are complacent with their games. If it is ok, then they will keep playing it. They don't really get bothered by little issues and almost never verbal on forums unless their game betrays them. They are the gamers who play games and enjoy them. Those are also the best paying customers and the ones who subscribe to things if it satisfies their needs. They only play a single or very few games and only leave it when it betrays them to the point where they don't enjoy it.  This is mainly because they don't spend hours each day playing games or posting on forums.

    The point here is that forum posters are almost never a part of the general crowd of players in a game. Posting on forums is very outspoken and out of character for the general population of gamers.

    I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
    I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
    I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,749
    Different strokes for different folks.  What you may find boring, I will probably find entertaining and vice versa.  What we do know is that games with systems that feel punishing or too challenging (hardcore) are much less popular than games that are geared more as entertainment and more casual.  There's room for all kinds of games in this genre, but don't expect to see greater representation of hardcore likes and dislikes in a genre that is no longer dominated by you.

    image
  • PoporiPopori Member UncommonPosts: 334
    Originally posted by Rossboss
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    Yeah ... i agree.

    It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

    Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

    If there are not, then why do we always end up with the argument "the majority has chosen it, therefore it is better" ? (even if it not true apart of special cases)

    From both (and sometimes all three) of you?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Because average people are complacent with their games. If it is ok, then they will keep playing it. They don't really get bothered by little issues and almost never verbal on forums unless their game betrays them. They are the gamers who play games and enjoy them. Those are also the best paying customers and the ones who subscribe to things if it satisfies their needs. They only play a single or very few games and only leave it when it betrays them to the point where they don't enjoy it.  This is mainly because they don't spend hours each day playing games or posting on forums.

    The point here is that forum posters are almost never a part of the general crowd of players in a game. Posting on forums is very outspoken and out of character for the general population of gamers.

    Pretty much this.  The MMO market is continuing to grow despite this supposed 'fix' being the key to repairing what doesn't appear broken.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Member Posts: 1,214
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Nothing wrong with that. The biggest issue I have with some posters is how they think they are above the "average gamer" like reading a map or a wall of text required some special kind of special intelligence. Or that spending hours upon hours doing something completely trivial makes them "hardcore". Please...

    My biggest problem is that they think that what they want is inherently superior and therefore, everyone else ought to want it too and if they want something different, they must be wrong.  There are lots of games I'd like to play if they existed.  They don't exist.  I deal with it and move on.

    Yeah ... i agree.

    It is laughable to think that the requirement to map makes a game hard, and somehow superior to play. I played the first Might and Magic and have to use graph paper to map out every level. It is not hard. Just tedious and inconvenient. I would much rather play a game with auto-mapping.

    Games are just entertainment products, as pointed out in this topic by others before. There is no superior preferences .. just different preferences.

    Yet if someone expresses a difference in preference to what you and Quirrid like, you are sure to jump in that it isn't what the majority want and wouldn't be a good product. Funny how that works.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Different strokes for different folks.  What you may find boring, I will probably find entertaining and vice versa.  What we do know is that games with systems that feel punishing or too challenging (hardcore) are much less popular than games that are geared more as entertainment and more casual.  There's room for all kinds of games in this genre, but don't expect to see greater representation of hardcore likes and dislikes in a genre that is no longer dominated by you.

    I think as a general principle, games should have more options so to cover a larger set of preferences.

    Look at D3. Now it has a 11 level difficulty setting which can accomodate people who wants minimal challenge, or a very challenging PvE game. That is a win-win for everyone.

     

  • PoporiPopori Member UncommonPosts: 334
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Different strokes for different folks.  What you may find boring, I will probably find entertaining and vice versa.  What we do know is that games with systems that feel punishing or too challenging (hardcore) are much less popular than games that are geared more as entertainment and more casual.  There's room for all kinds of games in this genre, but don't expect to see greater representation of hardcore likes and dislikes in a genre that is no longer dominated by you.

    I think as a general principle, games should have more options so to cover a larger set of preferences.

    Look at D3. Now it has a 11 level difficulty setting which can accomodate people who wants minimal challenge, or a very challenging PvE game. That is a win-win for everyone.

     

    No one is forcing you to use up to date armor and spells in most MMOs or stick to zones that are level appropriate.  Try playing WoW in gear 20 levels lower than your own or what have you, I'm sure there is challenge to be found if you have the willpower to create it.

    In most group based games soloers find ways (be they mind numbing or not) to effectively level without having to be bothered with other folks.  It just takes some creativity and effort.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Member Posts: 1,214
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

    Just as easily as one could say if you don't want downtime, don't play MMORPG's or go play console games where downtime doesn't exist unless you pause or save the game.

    Here you seem to be saying like it my way, if not...do these things to make it inconvenient for you...as long as it doesn't mess up what I want instead of getting a game the way you want and making me not like it.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Member Posts: 1,214
    Originally posted by Popori
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Different strokes for different folks.  What you may find boring, I will probably find entertaining and vice versa.  What we do know is that games with systems that feel punishing or too challenging (hardcore) are much less popular than games that are geared more as entertainment and more casual.  There's room for all kinds of games in this genre, but don't expect to see greater representation of hardcore likes and dislikes in a genre that is no longer dominated by you.

    I think as a general principle, games should have more options so to cover a larger set of preferences.

    Look at D3. Now it has a 11 level difficulty setting which can accomodate people who wants minimal challenge, or a very challenging PvE game. That is a win-win for everyone.

     

    No one is forcing you to use up to date armor and spells in most MMOs or stick to zones that are level appropriate.  Try playing WoW in gear 20 levels lower than your own or what have you, I'm sure there is challenge to be found if you have the willpower to create it.

    In most group based games soloers find ways (be they mind numbing or not) to effectively level without having to be bothered with other folks.  It just takes some creativity and effort.

    "Effort" isn't in a lot of MMORPG players vocabulary these days. It's considered inconvenient and "not fun".

  • PoporiPopori Member UncommonPosts: 334
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

    Just as easily as one could say if you don't want downtime, don't play MMORPG's or go play console games where downtime doesn't exist unless you pause or save the game.

    Here you seem to be saying like it my way, if not...do these things to make it inconvenient for you...as long as it doesn't mess up what I want instead of getting a game the way you want and making me not like it.

    Lol thats pretty much the eternal struggle.  People are saying make the game harder so I have fun, vs people saying leave the game alone so I have fun.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Member Posts: 1,214
    Originally posted by Popori
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

    Just as easily as one could say if you don't want downtime, don't play MMORPG's or go play console games where downtime doesn't exist unless you pause or save the game.

    Here you seem to be saying like it my way, if not...do these things to make it inconvenient for you...as long as it doesn't mess up what I want instead of getting a game the way you want and making me not like it.

    Lol thats pretty much the eternal struggle.  People are saying make the game harder so I have fun, vs people saying leave the game alone so I have fun.

    Sure...but I have said you can have both in them if done right. It's finding that balance that is the issue. Especially since most of the community is so whine prone.

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

    Well, why do you think that this should work and/or be a viable argument and option, but the opposite, "go play a fps" should not?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Because it does not require anyone to change their game. If you say "go play a FPS" .. what if i want RPG combat?

    The suggestion "If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper" does not require you to go to another form of gameplay, which you may not like.

    In fact, it provides extra choices, which is good.

    Arent you usually in favor of game jumping? Why is it bad suddenly?

    And arguably, some fps in their choices and variability offer far more rpg elements than mmos these days...

    Flame on!

    :)

  • PoporiPopori Member UncommonPosts: 334
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by Popori
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I agree there needs to be some "downtime" between the highs, because that makes the highs seem higher. But it's probably difficult to hit the sweet spot between too convenient and too inconvenient.

    Each person wants a different amount of down-time. There is no really to put in artificial ones because that won't fit everyones. No down-time provides a choice.

    If you want downtime, turn off your computer, and read a book. If you want to be inconvenient, turn off the auto-map and pull out your graphing paper.

     

    Just as easily as one could say if you don't want downtime, don't play MMORPG's or go play console games where downtime doesn't exist unless you pause or save the game.

    Here you seem to be saying like it my way, if not...do these things to make it inconvenient for you...as long as it doesn't mess up what I want instead of getting a game the way you want and making me not like it.

    Lol thats pretty much the eternal struggle.  People are saying make the game harder so I have fun, vs people saying leave the game alone so I have fun.

    Sure...but I have said you can have both in them if done right. It's finding that balance that is the issue. Especially since most of the community is so whine prone.

    You could, sure.  But everyone would simply take the fastest, simplest route and ignore the other half.  If that weren't the case than any other solution would be just as viable.  Gamers have to be FORCED into a SPECIFIC path or they'll just take the simplest, quickest one and moan the whole way about one thing or another.

    Like exploration.  Games can have HUGE SPRAWLING worlds and gamers could love exploring, but if they're not rewarded for doing it ...eh, eff it.

    Edit: Or even better, raiding.  I hate raiding.  Its a good challenge, sure.  But if you offered someone the chance to get the same gear by walking up to some guy and punching him  in the face for an hour, I'd put money on raiding dying off pretty darn fast.

Sign In or Register to comment.