But why do you, its not really jumping, you have put on 7 mile boots for this one, arrive at the conclusions that it would overcomplicate things and it has to be very early? Or should we really take only the bad examples into account? Like in your progressive system dead content that is completely skipped?
As for (a) , i will let you find out on your own why i think it is actually a bad thing, and as for (b), it made me think of an era around 7-8 years ago, when soon-to-be-bankrupt managers pranced around mobile gaming companies spewing things like "a game has to entertain just for the first 15 seconds, then people will play it and be happy", so i wont comment
Well let's rewind a bit to the part where I already said that unless the early content is botched in some way, it's fine. Meaning it's going to be sufficiently complex and deep. Adding complexity to that is overcomplication.
Not even sure what you're trying to say with the latter bit. Just sounds like a bunch of baseless flame bait.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well let's rewind a bit to the part where I already said that unless the early content is botched in some way, it's fine. Meaning it's going to be sufficiently complex and deep. Adding complexity to that is overcomplication.
Not even sure what you're trying to say with the latter bit. Just sounds like a bunch of baseless flame bait.
Well, you never said that, you said "unless previous content was botched it makes more sense to add content at the end" thus i understood "addding early content makes sense only if early content was botched", then you continued to paint a picture of a game that overwhelms players with content, which was the bad example i mentioned later, vertical progression has its own bad examples, too.
And dunno, do you really expect to talk about this at this completely theoretical level, where N features means a good game, N-1 means a botched game and N+1 means overcomplicated?
No game can run forever, or run in its original state forever, there will always be fragmentation, may it be vertical ("fun starts at endgame") or horizontal ("there are too many skills now so we introduced a new race that has its own dimension"), you can just prolong the time it has not yet happened.
As for the flame, it was not intended so, if someone says that he understands the game "better" just because he understands the playstyle of the top 5% or values it the most, it concerns me. And (b) was a bait from you, not me
Well, you never said that, you said "unless previous content was botched it makes more sense to add content at the end" thus i understood "addding early content makes sense only if early content was botched", then you continued to paint a picture of a game that overwhelms players with content, which was the bad example i mentioned later, vertical progression has its own bad examples, too.
And dunno, do you really expect to talk about this at this completely theoretical level, where N features means a good game, N-1 means a botched game and N+1 means overcomplicated?
No game can run forever, or run in its original state forever, there will always be fragmentation, may it be vertical ("fun starts at endgame") or horizontal ("there are too many skills now so we introduced a new race that has its own dimension"), you can just prolong the time it has not yet happened.
As for the flame, it was not intended so, if someone says that he understands the game "better" just because he understands the playstyle of the top 5% or values it the most, it concerns me. And (b) was a bait from you, not me
Right, adding early content makes sense only if early content was botched (although depending on the mistakes made, you might replace it rather than simply adding to it: painting the Mona Lisa on the same wall covered in crayon doodles won't quite have the same effect.)
The theoretical discussion happened because someone asked why endgame existed at all, and I gave the quick recap of why it happens (make a game, watch players eventually bore of it, add new content for them, realize they're now calling the new content "endgame".) I didn't really delve too deeply into exactly how many features are too many or too few; I was content to just call either extreme "botched" and leave it at that. I wasn't exactly delving deeply into theoretics.
Neither (A) nor (B) were baits. They were calm explanations that I know what I'm talking about, after you seemed to question whether I understood depth. To understand high-level play in a deep game is to understand game depth, and to create and modify games and observe how players react to those changes further enhances that understanding. Both traits are quite relevant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's exactly what I do. I have zero interest in endgame, I play until I max my character and then the character gets shelved. If the game is fun enough, I'll start another character. If not, I'll drop the game until there is more pre-endgame content to do, or I'll just go play a different game.
Yeah. Just play whatever part of the game that entertains you .. that is what an entertainment product is about.
And there is no lack of good games to play. Personally i like end-game progression too .. but i can totally see why some only digs level progression.
I won't do endgame becuase I refuse to engage in PvP of any kind and I absolutely hate raiding. Not much else to do in the endgame in most MMOs.
Not that i blame you. I don't raid anymore. Too much work & commitment. And i want to play LFR, i may as well just farm in D3. The combat is way more fun.
But you have options. There are so many MMOs .. you can probably keep leveling till eternity.
Right, adding early content makes sense only if early content was botched (although depending on the mistakes made, you might replace it rather than simply adding to it: painting the Mona Lisa on the same wall covered in crayon doodles won't quite have the same effect.)
The theoretical discussion happened because someone asked why endgame existed at all, and I gave the quick recap of why it happens (make a game, watch players eventually bore of it, add new content for them, realize they're now calling the new content "endgame".) I didn't really delve too deeply into exactly how many features are too many or too few; I was content to just call either extreme "botched" and leave it at that. I wasn't exactly delving deeply into theoretics.
Neither (A) nor (B) were baits. They were calm explanations that I know what I'm talking about, after you seemed to question whether I understood depth. To understand high-level play in a deep game is to understand game depth, and to create and modify games and observe how players react to those changes further enhances that understanding. Both traits are quite relevant.
Well, make up your mind, you cannot say it is fine and not fine at the same time.
If you remember, i just questioned if it is the only way, after which we got into this discussion where you claim that it is, because N+1 automaticly means overcomplicated.
There were calm explanations of where you are coming from and what your experiences (or expertises?) are, not whether you know what you are talking about. Detail, but important.
That's exactly what I do. I have zero interest in endgame, I play until I max my character and then the character gets shelved. If the game is fun enough, I'll start another character. If not, I'll drop the game until there is more pre-endgame content to do, or I'll just go play a different game.
Yeah. Just play whatever part of the game that entertains you .. that is what an entertainment product is about.
And there is no lack of good games to play. Personally i like end-game progression too .. but i can totally see why some only digs level progression.
I won't do endgame becuase I refuse to engage in PvP of any kind and I absolutely hate raiding. Not much else to do in the endgame in most MMOs.
Not that i blame you. I don't raid anymore. Too much work & commitment. And i want to play LFR, i may as well just farm in D3. The combat is way more fun.
But you have options. There are so many MMOs .. you can probably keep leveling till eternity.
It's not so much about work and commitment, it's just boring. A whole lot of standing around doing nothing, then a short time actually fighting, then back to standing around doing nothing, with the very real risk of getting virtually nothing for your efforts. I'd rather go grind on my own and at least get something for my efforts.
It's not so much about work and commitment, it's just boring. A whole lot of standing around doing nothing, then a short time actually fighting, then back to standing around doing nothing, with the very real risk of getting virtually nothing for your efforts. I'd rather go grind on my own and at least get something for my efforts.
LFR is not that boring .. if fighting is what you are looking for. Usually the groups move pretty fast. I don't remember sitting around doing nothing.
But yea .. normal or guild raiding is more boring . because more planning is needed, or waiting for people to show up.
And it is too much work & commitment. I don't want to give up all my SAT evenings just for a game. I don't want to have to "study" and "practice hard core maneuver" for hours. Not that i cannot do it, i have done it before, but that is just not fun.
Well, make up your mind, you cannot say it is fine and not fine at the same time.
If you remember, i just questioned if it is the only way, after which we got into this discussion where you claim that it is, because N+1 automaticly means overcomplicated.
1. No clue what you're referring to, I've said the same thing the entire time.
2. I've been describing avoiding overcomplication in much the same way someone might say, "Avoid overeating." Is your life going to end if you do it a little? No. It's just bad. Unless the restaurant screwed up and didn't provide enough food, don't have a second entree. Unless the game screwed up and didn't provide enough early gameplay, don't add complication early.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. No clue what you're referring to, I've said the same thing the entire time.
2. I've been describing avoiding overcomplication in much the same way someone might say, "Avoid overeating." Is your life going to end if you do it a little? No. It's just bad. Unless the restaurant screwed up and didn't provide enough food, don't have a second entree. Unless the game screwed up and didn't provide enough early gameplay, don't add complication early.
2. No, you didnt, you argument was, if i understood it correctly, that since it MAY lead to overcomplication, it should not be done. Vertical progression MAY also lead to some unwanted side effects, yet you say it should be done. In the rest(aurant thing) you are just reiterating the whole point, again assuming there is some N and N+1 being bad.
Anyways, enough food for whom? And who are you to tell me i cannot have a second entree instead of the main course?
2. No, you didnt, you argument was, if i understood it correctly, that since it MAY lead to overcomplication, it should not be done. Vertical progression MAY also lead to some unwanted side effects, yet you say it should be done. In the rest(aurant thing) you are just reiterating the whole point, again assuming there is some N and N+1 being bad.
Anyways, enough food for whom? And who are you to tell me i cannot have a second entree instead of the main course?
1. Again, what I described there is when you've eaten enough, eating is overeating. When a game is sufficiently complicated and deep, adding features is overcomplicating.
2. From the start I've said things like "too much complexity early on reduces your game's retention." I've described that same idea several ways, but you still seem eager to create false assumptions on your own, and then argue with your own assumption-based cardboard stand-in of me.
Just read what I'm actually saying, realize they're safe and accurate statements, and either discuss what I'm actually saying or let the conversation end.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. Again, what I described there is when you've eaten enough, eating is overeating. When a game is sufficiently complicated and deep, adding features is overcomplicating.
2. From the start I've said things like "too much complexity early on reduces your game's retention." I've described that same idea several ways, but you still seem eager to create false assumptions on your own, and then argue with your own assumption-based cardboard stand-in of me.
Just read what I'm actually saying, realize they're safe and accurate statements, and either discuss what I'm actually saying or let the conversation end.
1. Again, there is no quantifiable N features when a game is "sufficiently complex and deep", where adding features always ends up in overcomplication.
2. I never argued agains that, i argued agains the assumption of "too much", you are just assuming it would be, which is not given.
They are safe and accurate statements as far as a judges response to "is XYZ guilty?" would be "people who steal are guilty of theft", hoping that people will understand it as "XYZ is guilty" while avoiding the responsibility.
What?! Can't somebody develop a game where it's interesting and challenging from the start? Interesting and Challenging doesn't mean 'difficult' per se, not numerically rough or 'hardcore' or permadeath, just that you need to observe and learn and act, with an actual sense of accomplishment, rather than the ever accelerating skinner boxes.
They did, It was called EverQuest.
Unfortunately the industry has moved away from that golden formula to appease a bunch of entitled whiner console gamers.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by Arakazi Why do we need levels at all?
Because thats part and parcel of a role playing game. Thats like asking why a fantasy novel would need swords in it. If you take out the swords, etc, its not fantasy anymore.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by Arakazi Why do we need levels at all?
Because thats part and parcel of a role playing game. Thats like asking why a fantasy novel would need swords in it. If you take out the swords, etc, its not fantasy anymore.
I don't buy that. Why not drop a toon in the middle of the world armed with nothing but a stick, but no limits on where he can go or what he can do given certain conditions. Areas need a better reason than "this is where you level up 30 - 40" and after that ignore the place.
Originally posted by Arakazi Why do we need levels at all?
We don't. They're just a convenient centralized metric for measuring progression.
A fair amount of RPGs don't use levels at all.
Honestly in most level-based games there's an argument to be made for level reform. In WOW it would be something like a formula that combines player level with item level to give a relatively accurate overall sense of your progression.
While such a formula could become an extremely accurate indicator of character potential, opponents of such a system would be correct to point out that part of the point of games which end in Level Cap with Item Progression is to make progression vague enough that players have a harder time being assholes (by being nazis about who they take with them on raids/dungeons.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. Again, there is no quantifiable N features when a game is "sufficiently complex and deep", where adding features always ends up in overcomplication.
2. I never argued agains that, i argued agains the assumption of "too much", you are just assuming it would be, which is not given.
In much the same way that a person saying "I've eaten enough" isn't referring to some scientifically quantifiable number of calories that they've delicately measured, saying a game is "complex enough" isn't referring to some precise quantity of complexity.
Since you continue to discuss things I'm not even saying, I guess this is the end of this particular thread.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There should never be an endgame in a mmorpg! Mmorpg= never ending adventure not an 8 hr long console RPG. Grind to Max lvl or grind for endgame loot, you are still grinding either way. Need to open up mmorpg's and be free to do what YOU want to do when YOU want to do it.
Originally posted by Onomas There should never be an endgame in a mmorpg! Mmorpg= never ending adventure not an 8 hr long console RPG. Grind to Max lvl or grind for endgame loot, you are still grinding either way. Need to open up mmorpg's and be free to do what YOU want to do when YOU want to do it.
I agree with the sentiment, but the method used to get there is generally repetition. It's very obvious with the "end game" activities, but even sandbox style games and in theme park games before maximum level, repetition is the key mechanic being used.
Down with repetition!
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Normandy7 MMOs should be about the journey to the end. There is no meat and potatoes in any mmo today. It is about that quick fix and straight to endgame.
No meat and potatoes? What?
Are you claiming that you've reached not just endgame, but The End of every single recent MMORPG out there?
If I created an MMORPG with 20,000 hours worth of content, but you hit max level after 30 seconds (max level is 2), would you say that game lacks meat and potatoes too?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In much the same way that a person saying "I've eaten enough" isn't referring to some scientifically quantifiable number of calories that they've delicately measured, saying a game is "complex enough" isn't referring to some precise quantity of complexity.
Since you continue to discuss things I'm not even saying, I guess this is the end of this particular thread.
You are missing my point on purpose, again. This time to left out "overeating" ("adding content at this pont leads to overcomplication") just to be right with no real connection to the issue at hand.
I am saying the same thing the whole time, that adding content before "endgame" does not necessarily overcomplicate things, nor that the game has to lack in that area beforehand for it to make sense, while trying to argue against your (imo) nonsensical argument that a state of optimal complexity vs depth can be reached where adding something before "endgame" always ends up in overcomplication and thus it should not be done.
If you find you are not trying to say those things, do tell.
I've never understood the whole "race to the top" mentality, it's an alien concept to me. The people who reach max level on a newly released game within two weeks and then complain that they "have nothing to do". And want the level cap raised so they can "have nothing to do" again in a week or less. Seriously?
And it's not that some of those games don't have fun things to do at lower levels. But those fun things are usually destroyed by the lvl capped players who've made new characters and given those new chars equip not available to the up and coming crowd. So the "fun" at lower levels is only really "fun" for the player with the lvl capped toon and lots of gold. For up and coming players the stuff that should be fun is a chore or just skipped all together. And being told that "you should just cap your toon and make a new one so you can have fun" is stupidity. Why should I have to make what in essence is a "throw away" character so I can make the character I want to make so I can have "fun"? Most amusing is the same people occupying the lower level places often complain that the higher level events hardly ever run. Gee, it couldn't be because you're all sitting down at the lower levels trolling the new players, could it?
And since when did "end game" become something other than beating the final boss? When I see end game mentioned, it's about top lvl pvp. WTF does top level pvp have to do with the story line that the game is based around? When did mmorpg become mmofps?
3. Fun does exist before endgame for all the MMO i played. Otherwise, why would i even spend a single min on them before end-game?
4. Challenge is sometimes fun, but it is not required all the time. And again, for me. And there different types of challenge. Example. When i play D3 (or whatever MMO), one type of challenge is the difficulty to beat a boss (or an elite pack) so i sometimes do push my character for that. But that is not all. It is also a challenge in the meta game to set up efficient farming runs. In that case, i am killing hordes very fast .. there is little challenge in the moment to moment combat, but a lot of challenge of using the right build/gear/find right area, so i can do it fast. Speed is its own challenge.
Comments
Well let's rewind a bit to the part where I already said that unless the early content is botched in some way, it's fine. Meaning it's going to be sufficiently complex and deep. Adding complexity to that is overcomplication.
Not even sure what you're trying to say with the latter bit. Just sounds like a bunch of baseless flame bait.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well, you never said that, you said "unless previous content was botched it makes more sense to add content at the end" thus i understood "addding early content makes sense only if early content was botched", then you continued to paint a picture of a game that overwhelms players with content, which was the bad example i mentioned later, vertical progression has its own bad examples, too.
And dunno, do you really expect to talk about this at this completely theoretical level, where N features means a good game, N-1 means a botched game and N+1 means overcomplicated?
No game can run forever, or run in its original state forever, there will always be fragmentation, may it be vertical ("fun starts at endgame") or horizontal ("there are too many skills now so we introduced a new race that has its own dimension"), you can just prolong the time it has not yet happened.
As for the flame, it was not intended so, if someone says that he understands the game "better" just because he understands the playstyle of the top 5% or values it the most, it concerns me. And (b) was a bait from you, not me
Flame on!
Right, adding early content makes sense only if early content was botched (although depending on the mistakes made, you might replace it rather than simply adding to it: painting the Mona Lisa on the same wall covered in crayon doodles won't quite have the same effect.)
The theoretical discussion happened because someone asked why endgame existed at all, and I gave the quick recap of why it happens (make a game, watch players eventually bore of it, add new content for them, realize they're now calling the new content "endgame".) I didn't really delve too deeply into exactly how many features are too many or too few; I was content to just call either extreme "botched" and leave it at that. I wasn't exactly delving deeply into theoretics.
Neither (A) nor (B) were baits. They were calm explanations that I know what I'm talking about, after you seemed to question whether I understood depth. To understand high-level play in a deep game is to understand game depth, and to create and modify games and observe how players react to those changes further enhances that understanding. Both traits are quite relevant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not that i blame you. I don't raid anymore. Too much work & commitment. And i want to play LFR, i may as well just farm in D3. The combat is way more fun.
But you have options. There are so many MMOs .. you can probably keep leveling till eternity.
Well, make up your mind, you cannot say it is fine and not fine at the same time.
If you remember, i just questioned if it is the only way, after which we got into this discussion where you claim that it is, because N+1 automaticly means overcomplicated.
There were calm explanations of where you are coming from and what your experiences (or expertises?) are, not whether you know what you are talking about. Detail, but important.
Flame on!
It's not so much about work and commitment, it's just boring. A whole lot of standing around doing nothing, then a short time actually fighting, then back to standing around doing nothing, with the very real risk of getting virtually nothing for your efforts. I'd rather go grind on my own and at least get something for my efforts.
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
LFR is not that boring .. if fighting is what you are looking for. Usually the groups move pretty fast. I don't remember sitting around doing nothing.
But yea .. normal or guild raiding is more boring . because more planning is needed, or waiting for people to show up.
And it is too much work & commitment. I don't want to give up all my SAT evenings just for a game. I don't want to have to "study" and "practice hard core maneuver" for hours. Not that i cannot do it, i have done it before, but that is just not fun.
1. No clue what you're referring to, I've said the same thing the entire time.
2. I've been describing avoiding overcomplication in much the same way someone might say, "Avoid overeating." Is your life going to end if you do it a little? No. It's just bad. Unless the restaurant screwed up and didn't provide enough food, don't have a second entree. Unless the game screwed up and didn't provide enough early gameplay, don't add complication early.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. Post #79
2. No, you didnt, you argument was, if i understood it correctly, that since it MAY lead to overcomplication, it should not be done. Vertical progression MAY also lead to some unwanted side effects, yet you say it should be done. In the rest(aurant thing) you are just reiterating the whole point, again assuming there is some N and N+1 being bad.
Anyways, enough food for whom? And who are you to tell me i cannot have a second entree instead of the main course?
Flame on!
1. Again, what I described there is when you've eaten enough, eating is overeating. When a game is sufficiently complicated and deep, adding features is overcomplicating.
2. From the start I've said things like "too much complexity early on reduces your game's retention." I've described that same idea several ways, but you still seem eager to create false assumptions on your own, and then argue with your own assumption-based cardboard stand-in of me.
Just read what I'm actually saying, realize they're safe and accurate statements, and either discuss what I'm actually saying or let the conversation end.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1. Again, there is no quantifiable N features when a game is "sufficiently complex and deep", where adding features always ends up in overcomplication.
2. I never argued agains that, i argued agains the assumption of "too much", you are just assuming it would be, which is not given.
They are safe and accurate statements as far as a judges response to "is XYZ guilty?" would be "people who steal are guilty of theft", hoping that people will understand it as "XYZ is guilty" while avoiding the responsibility.
Flame on!
They did, It was called EverQuest.
Unfortunately the industry has moved away from that golden formula to appease a bunch of entitled whiner console gamers.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Because thats part and parcel of a role playing game. Thats like asking why a fantasy novel would need swords in it. If you take out the swords, etc, its not fantasy anymore.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't buy that. Why not drop a toon in the middle of the world armed with nothing but a stick, but no limits on where he can go or what he can do given certain conditions. Areas need a better reason than "this is where you level up 30 - 40" and after that ignore the place.
We don't. They're just a convenient centralized metric for measuring progression.
A fair amount of RPGs don't use levels at all.
Honestly in most level-based games there's an argument to be made for level reform. In WOW it would be something like a formula that combines player level with item level to give a relatively accurate overall sense of your progression.
While such a formula could become an extremely accurate indicator of character potential, opponents of such a system would be correct to point out that part of the point of games which end in Level Cap with Item Progression is to make progression vague enough that players have a harder time being assholes (by being nazis about who they take with them on raids/dungeons.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In much the same way that a person saying "I've eaten enough" isn't referring to some scientifically quantifiable number of calories that they've delicately measured, saying a game is "complex enough" isn't referring to some precise quantity of complexity.
Since you continue to discuss things I'm not even saying, I guess this is the end of this particular thread.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Grind to Max lvl or grind for endgame loot, you are still grinding either way. Need to open up mmorpg's and be free to do what YOU want to do when YOU want to do it.
I agree with the sentiment, but the method used to get there is generally repetition. It's very obvious with the "end game" activities, but even sandbox style games and in theme park games before maximum level, repetition is the key mechanic being used.
Down with repetition!
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No meat and potatoes? What?
Are you claiming that you've reached not just endgame, but The End of every single recent MMORPG out there?
If I created an MMORPG with 20,000 hours worth of content, but you hit max level after 30 seconds (max level is 2), would you say that game lacks meat and potatoes too?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are missing my point on purpose, again. This time to left out "overeating" ("adding content at this pont leads to overcomplication") just to be right with no real connection to the issue at hand.
I am saying the same thing the whole time, that adding content before "endgame" does not necessarily overcomplicate things, nor that the game has to lack in that area beforehand for it to make sense, while trying to argue against your (imo) nonsensical argument that a state of optimal complexity vs depth can be reached where adding something before "endgame" always ends up in overcomplication and thus it should not be done.
If you find you are not trying to say those things, do tell.
Flame on!
I've never understood the whole "race to the top" mentality, it's an alien concept to me. The people who reach max level on a newly released game within two weeks and then complain that they "have nothing to do". And want the level cap raised so they can "have nothing to do" again in a week or less. Seriously?
And it's not that some of those games don't have fun things to do at lower levels. But those fun things are usually destroyed by the lvl capped players who've made new characters and given those new chars equip not available to the up and coming crowd. So the "fun" at lower levels is only really "fun" for the player with the lvl capped toon and lots of gold. For up and coming players the stuff that should be fun is a chore or just skipped all together. And being told that "you should just cap your toon and make a new one so you can have fun" is stupidity. Why should I have to make what in essence is a "throw away" character so I can make the character I want to make so I can have "fun"? Most amusing is the same people occupying the lower level places often complain that the higher level events hardly ever run. Gee, it couldn't be because you're all sitting down at the lower levels trolling the new players, could it?
And since when did "end game" become something other than beating the final boss? When I see end game mentioned, it's about top lvl pvp. WTF does top level pvp have to do with the story line that the game is based around? When did mmorpg become mmofps?
1. Fun should exist everywhere in the game.
2. Fun is subjective.
3. Fun does exist before endgame for all the MMO i played. Otherwise, why would i even spend a single min on them before end-game?
4. Challenge is sometimes fun, but it is not required all the time. And again, for me. And there different types of challenge. Example. When i play D3 (or whatever MMO), one type of challenge is the difficulty to beat a boss (or an elite pack) so i sometimes do push my character for that. But that is not all. It is also a challenge in the meta game to set up efficient farming runs. In that case, i am killing hordes very fast .. there is little challenge in the moment to moment combat, but a lot of challenge of using the right build/gear/find right area, so i can do it fast. Speed is its own challenge.