Read carefully: Skill carries over, grind does not. Skill is different from grind. Grind to stay competitive is against casual friendliness. Skill is not.
How... how is this possible. Over and over you just ignore what I'm saying. I know they're DIFFERENT. The point is they're not different in this context. If the point is how quickly you can get into the game and both games have something that slows you down in getting into it, how are they different?
The only thing you've said is "grind to stay competitive is against casual friendliness. skill is not." This is a perfect example of you just asserting that you're correct without offering ANY reasoning. I say how are they different in the context of accessibility; in the context of how long it takes to get into a game. And you retort with just that they're different. Great....
But they are different within this context. One is skill, one is grind - other is irrelevant, one is not. I've explained it multiple times by now. I've quoted articles for you.
No, those are good examples, because none of them speaks about difficulty playing a role to being casual friendly or hardcore. One of them says it straight: "The most common assumption is that a difficult game is necessarily hardcore. This is simply not true."
You define casual friendly wrong. That has been the point of all this all along. Me and Venge have provided quotes from people who agree with our definitions to a varying degree, but more importantly, are directly against yours. Casual friendly games are not designed to attract the market which is referred to as casual players.
So what about the definition that I offered that directly contradicts your definition? What about all of the common sense, which you consistently ignore, that directly contradicts your definition? Do you deny that a casual friendly game is a game that is trying to appeal to casual gamers? And do you deny that casual gamers are going to be less skilled on average than hardcore gamers? It's not a coincidence that you never answer these points straight up.
By the way, here are some quotes from earlier in an article that Venge posted. He of course conveniently left these parts out:
"Casual games can fall into any genre, and even games for veteran players can contain casual elements that are meant to help ease less-experienced players into the gameplay until they find their footing (for instance, interactive tutorials and/or adjustable difficulty settings). "
"The term “casual game” hit the mainstream around 2006, when Nintendo’s Wii introduced families to easy-to-play games that could be enjoyed by everyone. In reality, casual games have existed for decades. In general, games that are built around an easy-to-grasp system of rules are considered “casual.”
Did or did I not explain the difference between a "casual game" and a casual friendly game? Explanation at the end of the reply.
Because I have seen many games that require a huge time investment, but are very easy. Eve Online might be the best example: It is notoriously inaccessible, everything but casual friendly, yet it is a very easy game. Sure, it takes a long time to learn it, but it is not a hard game the same way SC2 is. Eve Online takes tremendous effort if you want to succeed, but it is not hard as in you have to be skilled to succeed.
Yeah and I'm the one saying that a lot of factors go into what makes a game casual/hardcore. This example of yours is like me pointing to a casual game that is easy and saying "see all casual games are easy." Just because there are hardcore games that are mechanically easy doesn't mean casual games don't have to be easier (on average) to appeal to casual players. This just basic logic...
You wanted me to provide an example, so I provided it. The example supports my argument: "Hardcore games are not necessarily hard, nor are casual friendly games (or even casual games) necessarily easy." Because examples of both exists, it would be foolish to make assumptions about difficulty on the basis of how casual friendly a game is.
No you missed my whole point completely. Difficulty applies to accessibility in first time use not when it applies to accessibility in terms of casual friendliness.
You have completely derailed. Re-read that sentence and tell me it's a reasonable response to what I'm saying.
In fact the last two things you've said on this particular point are just.... confused.
"Difficulty does not matter when we talk about accessibility relevant to casual friendliness?" = "I'm right because I'm right"
"Difficulty applies to accessibility in first time use not when it applies to accessibility in tersm of casual friendliness." = "I'm right because I'm right."
Look, accessibility is how accessible the game is, particularly right off the bat. If a game is really mechanically difficult, it's not as accessible. You can't play the game they way it's meant to be played until you practice at it. Do you see how I use simple, easy to understand steps in logic to SHOW why I'm right?
Not only does accessibility mean how accessible a game is not only from first time adoption but also from then onwards. This is the third time I am explaining this.
If it plays a factor (and I am not saying that it does), how do you make SC2 "easier"?
There's a feature called the arcade where people can post their own mods to the game. People have made MOBAs, FPS, RPG, etc using the starcraft 2 engine. They've even made bejeweled type games. It's KNOWN for people attracting casual players and it's KNOWN for being easier than the 1v1 ladder.
So they are essentially playiing a different game from SC2 then? I am curious, if I'm playing an RPG mod on SC2 engine, how does that translate to SC2 multiplayer being easier for me?
Don't misquote me. Difficulty is not related to casual friendliness.
Wait so you admit that difficulty is related to accessibility? And do you also admit that accessibility is related to casual friendliness? Because it seems pretty obvious that a casual player is going to be more attracted to a more accessible game.
But besides, again you just ignore the whole point. Casual friendliness is how much a game attracts casual players. Casual players don't play games as much as hardcore players. Therefore casual players aren't going to be as skilled. Therefore making a game geared towards casual players is going to be easier than one that isn't, on average.
Yes, difficulty is related to accessibility. yes, accessibility is related to casual friendliness. Yes, the niche which is referred to as "casual gamers" is more likely to enjoy accessible games. No, that does not mean casual friendly games are targeted for this niche.
Casual friendly games, such as League of Legends, are drastically different from "casual games" which include titles such as Angry Birds, Farmville and Wii Sports. "Casual games are generally played by people who do not identify themselves as gamers.
See the end of the reply for more clarification.
A lot of people quit LoL and DotA for the same reason. In LoL and in SC2 you are always pitted against opponents of the same skill level. You are always challenged no matter how good you are. The system tries to do its best to makes sure you are having fun.
Games like Quake Live are very casual friendly, yet very hard to master. It takes regular practice to maintain your edge, but you can enjoy them even if you are nowhere near the top. You just jump right in and start shooting. No need to prepare no need to grind.
Except they didn't quit LoL to play SC2, that's the difference. A lot of people have quit SC2 to go to LoL precisely because SC2 is too difficult.
Also, quake live ISN'T casual friendly. It's casual friendly based on your incorrect definition, but that's not how it's viewed. Not a lot of people who consider themselves "casual gamers" play quake live. Again, you're simply relying on your definition, not any kind of reason or real world example.
I really don't care which game is superior to which. I am not here to argue that. See the end of the reply for a thorough explanation between casual gamer, casual game and casual friendly game.
Yeah, "if they are", but they aren't. Your point after that is moot.
I am afraid you are starting to sound less and less coherent. I noticed you misused the phrase "can't prove a negative" and the term "circular logic", but I let those pass at the time. Now I just don't know what you are aiming at. I feel like I am wasting my time since since you refuse to concede defeat - not even a minor one. You are not making any progress, you are not trying to explain your point differently... you are just repeating the same thing over and over.
This is getting tiresome since since you apparently have nothing new to offer.
I'm not making any progress with you because you are totally ignoring my points, as you always do. I have nothing new to offer because you haven't dealt with the original points LOL. That's why arguments with you seem circular, because I say something, you ignore it, so I say it again. Arguments with people like Lizardbones at least progress and move in a certain direction, but with you they just go on forever because you just flat out ignore things you don't want to answer.
You're saying that casual friendly games/casual games aren't designed to attract casual players? Are you serious? To me that's the whole debate. You can forget everything else because if you don't admit that casual friendly/casual game is the degree to which it attracts casual players then what the heck is even the point of all this? What else could it possible mean? You think casual game/casual friendly game is totally disconnected from the term casual player?
Lets try this:
If I were to divide games crudely into three categories...
hardcore games
casual friendly games
casual games
...and their respective niches roughly into three groups...
gamers who enjoy hardcore games
gamers who don't enjoy hardcore games
non-gamers i.e "casual gamers"
...I may explain my view better.
"Casual games" are designed for "casual gamers", hardcore games for gamers who enjoy hardcore games, and casual friendly games are designed for gamers who don't enjoy hardcore games. You can be a hardcore player of any game - even Farmville. That is to say, you can invest as much time on any game as you want to, but it is not required. However, this does not mean you cannot play hardcore games casually, only they are not really designed for it. Hence the wording "casual friendly" when talking about games that are.
When I talk about hardcore vs. casual, I talk specifically about the required time investment. As I wrote earlier, since there are plenty of examples where hardcore games are easy and casual games hard, it is not sensible to make assumptions about difficulty with regards to the time investment required.
To say difficulty plays a role, the term "hardcore" becomes problematic. First of all, as you've said, difficulty is subjective, but it is also dependent on the competition in any multiplayer game. You will run into trouble by using one term to refer to both time investment and difficulty. Therefore I recommend that you, also, would use the term hardcore only to refer to the time investment and then talk about difficulty separately.
I hope this clarifies the matter somewhat.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Obviously it's not the only reason, but considering the differences between the old MMOs and the new ones, it's likely a very common reason.
If we brought some of the ancient Romans back with a time machine they'd probably not be very entertained by our relatively soft combat sports; even MMA.
Exactly. That is why it is a cop-out response.
I don't know why gladiatorial matches are relevant tho.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Obviously it's not the only reason, but considering the differences between the old MMOs and the new ones, it's likely a very common reason.
If we brought some of the ancient Romans back with a time machine they'd probably not be very entertained by our relatively soft combat sports; even MMA.
Exactly. That is why it is a cop-out response.
I don't know why gladiatorial matches are relevant tho.
I`m walking away from this one, lol.
It`s funny how many incredibly odd debates take place on this site; way too much twisting and turning.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by Quirhid [A bit cut because it wasn't going anywhere]
Read carefully: Skill carries over, grind does not. Skill is different from grind. Grind to stay competitive is against casual friendliness. Skill is not.
How... how is this possible. Over and over you just ignore what I'm saying. I know they're DIFFERENT. The point is they're not different in this context. If the point is how quickly you can get into the game and both games have something that slows you down in getting into it, how are they different?
The only thing you've said is "grind to stay competitive is against casual friendliness. skill is not." This is a perfect example of you just asserting that you're correct without offering ANY reasoning. I say how are they different in the context of accessibility; in the context of how long it takes to get into a game. And you retort with just that they're different. Great....
But they are different within this context. One is skill, one is grind - other is irrelevant, one is not. I've explained it multiple times by now. I've quoted articles for you.
I think this is like the 4th time in a row you've just stated that they're different within this context without explaining how they're different. They're both things that make the game less accessible. You can't just simply say they're different. HOW are they different within this context??? When you're talking about accessibility, they're both things that make the game less accessible.
No, those are good examples, because none of them speaks about difficulty playing a role to being casual friendly or hardcore. One of them says it straight: "The most common assumption is that a difficult game is necessarily hardcore. This is simply not true."
You define casual friendly wrong. That has been the point of all this all along. Me and Venge have provided quotes from people who agree with our definitions to a varying degree, but more importantly, are directly against yours. Casual friendly games are not designed to attract the market which is referred to as casual players.
So what about the definition that I offered that directly contradicts your definition? What about all of the common sense, which you consistently ignore, that directly contradicts your definition? Do you deny that a casual friendly game is a game that is trying to appeal to casual gamers? And do you deny that casual gamers are going to be less skilled on average than hardcore gamers? It's not a coincidence that you never answer these points straight up.
By the way, here are some quotes from earlier in an article that Venge posted. He of course conveniently left these parts out:
"Casual games can fall into any genre, and even games for veteran players can contain casual elements that are meant to help ease less-experienced players into the gameplay until they find their footing (for instance, interactive tutorials and/or adjustable difficulty settings). "
"The term “casual game” hit the mainstream around 2006, when Nintendo’s Wii introduced families to easy-to-play games that could be enjoyed by everyone. In reality, casual games have existed for decades. In general, games that are built around an easy-to-grasp system of rules are considered “casual.”
Did or did I not explain the difference between a "casual game" and a casual friendly game? Explanation at the end of the reply.
Well I'm not interested in having some pointless discussion where you make up small differences between terms. Not only that, this whole discussion from the beginning has been about casual friendly games.
Because I have seen many games that require a huge time investment, but are very easy. Eve Online might be the best example: It is notoriously inaccessible, everything but casual friendly, yet it is a very easy game. Sure, it takes a long time to learn it, but it is not a hard game the same way SC2 is. Eve Online takes tremendous effort if you want to succeed, but it is not hard as in you have to be skilled to succeed.
Yeah and I'm the one saying that a lot of factors go into what makes a game casual/hardcore. This example of yours is like me pointing to a casual game that is easy and saying "see all casual games are easy." Just because there are hardcore games that are mechanically easy doesn't mean casual games don't have to be easier (on average) to appeal to casual players. This just basic logic...
You wanted me to provide an example, so I provided it. The example supports my argument: "Hardcore games are not necessarily hard, nor are casual friendly games (or even casual games) necessarily easy." Because examples of both exists, it would be foolish to make assumptions about difficulty on the basis of how casual friendly a game is.
What part of the example supports your claim that "...nor are casual friendly games (or even casual games) necessarily easy."?? You give an example of a hardcore game and somehow determine something about casual/casual friendly games?
No you missed my whole point completely. Difficulty applies to accessibility in first time use not when it applies to accessibility in terms of casual friendliness.
You have completely derailed. Re-read that sentence and tell me it's a reasonable response to what I'm saying.
In fact the last two things you've said on this particular point are just.... confused.
"Difficulty does not matter when we talk about accessibility relevant to casual friendliness?" = "I'm right because I'm right"
"Difficulty applies to accessibility in first time use not when it applies to accessibility in tersm of casual friendliness." = "I'm right because I'm right."
Look, accessibility is how accessible the game is, particularly right off the bat. If a game is really mechanically difficult, it's not as accessible. You can't play the game they way it's meant to be played until you practice at it. Do you see how I use simple, easy to understand steps in logic to SHOW why I'm right?
Not only does accessibility mean how accessible a game is not only from first time adoption but also from then onwards. This is the third time I am explaining this.
Then how does the LoL example of grinding make any sense? Who cares whether or not accessible means accessible later AS WELL as accessible at first? The point is it has to be accessible at first, and a mechanically difficult game is not.
If it plays a factor (and I am not saying that it does), how do you make SC2 "easier"?
There's a feature called the arcade where people can post their own mods to the game. People have made MOBAs, FPS, RPG, etc using the starcraft 2 engine. They've even made bejeweled type games. It's KNOWN for people attracting casual players and it's KNOWN for being easier than the 1v1 ladder.
So they are essentially playiing a different game from SC2 then? I am curious, if I'm playing an RPG mod on SC2 engine, how does that translate to SC2 multiplayer being easier for me?
It doesn't translate into the 1v1 ladder being easier for you. I'm explaining a situation where SC2 was losing players to LoL and they took these measure to make their product (SC2) more casual. The things they did included many things, including an emphasis on these easier game modes. NONE of the things they did had anything to do with how long the play sessions are. Think back to when this discussion first started so many moons ago. Your simplistic explanation was to claim that SC2 was more casual than LoL because the matches were shorter.
Don't misquote me. Difficulty is not related to casual friendliness.
Wait so you admit that difficulty is related to accessibility? And do you also admit that accessibility is related to casual friendliness? Because it seems pretty obvious that a casual player is going to be more attracted to a more accessible game.
But besides, again you just ignore the whole point. Casual friendliness is how much a game attracts casual players. Casual players don't play games as much as hardcore players. Therefore casual players aren't going to be as skilled. Therefore making a game geared towards casual players is going to be easier than one that isn't, on average.
Yes, difficulty is related to accessibility. yes, accessibility is related to casual friendliness. Yes, the niche which is referred to as "casual gamers" is more likely to enjoy accessible games. No, that does not mean casual friendly games are targeted for this niche.
Casual friendly games, such as League of Legends, are drastically different from "casual games" which include titles such as Angry Birds, Farmville and Wii Sports. "Casual games are generally played by people who do not identify themselves as gamers.
See the end of the reply for more clarification.
So difficulty is related to accessibility and accessibility is related to casual friendliness. Is casual friendliness related to casual friendly games?
A lot of people quit LoL and DotA for the same reason. In LoL and in SC2 you are always pitted against opponents of the same skill level. You are always challenged no matter how good you are. The system tries to do its best to makes sure you are having fun.
Games like Quake Live are very casual friendly, yet very hard to master. It takes regular practice to maintain your edge, but you can enjoy them even if you are nowhere near the top. You just jump right in and start shooting. No need to prepare no need to grind.
Except they didn't quit LoL to play SC2, that's the difference. A lot of people have quit SC2 to go to LoL precisely because SC2 is too difficult.
Also, quake live ISN'T casual friendly. It's casual friendly based on your incorrect definition, but that's not how it's viewed. Not a lot of people who consider themselves "casual gamers" play quake live. Again, you're simply relying on your definition, not any kind of reason or real world example.
I really don't care which game is superior to which. I am not here to argue that. See the end of the reply for a thorough explanation between casual gamer, casual game and casual friendly game.
It's not about superiority. I'm saying they left SC2 to switch to LoL BECAUSE LoL is more casual.
Yeah, "if they are", but they aren't. Your point after that is moot.
I am afraid you are starting to sound less and less coherent. I noticed you misused the phrase "can't prove a negative" and the term "circular logic", but I let those pass at the time. Now I just don't know what you are aiming at. I feel like I am wasting my time since since you refuse to concede defeat - not even a minor one. You are not making any progress, you are not trying to explain your point differently... you are just repeating the same thing over and over.
This is getting tiresome since since you apparently have nothing new to offer.
I'm not making any progress with you because you are totally ignoring my points, as you always do. I have nothing new to offer because you haven't dealt with the original points LOL. That's why arguments with you seem circular, because I say something, you ignore it, so I say it again. Arguments with people like Lizardbones at least progress and move in a certain direction, but with you they just go on forever because you just flat out ignore things you don't want to answer.
You're saying that casual friendly games/casual games aren't designed to attract casual players? Are you serious? To me that's the whole debate. You can forget everything else because if you don't admit that casual friendly/casual game is the degree to which it attracts casual players then what the heck is even the point of all this? What else could it possible mean? You think casual game/casual friendly game is totally disconnected from the term casual player?
Lets try this:
If I were to divide games crudely into three categories...
hardcore games
casual friendly games
casual games
...and their respective niches roughly into three groups...
gamers who enjoy hardcore games
gamers who don't enjoy hardcore games
non-gamers i.e "casual gamers"
...I may explain my view better.
"Casual games" are designed for "casual gamers", hardcore games for gamers who enjoy hardcore games, and casual friendly games are designed for gamers who don't enjoy hardcore games. You can be a hardcore player of any game - even Farmville. That is to say, you can invest as much time on any game as you want to, but it is not required. However, this does not mean you cannot play hardcore games casually, only they are not really designed for it. Hence the wording "casual friendly" when talking about games that are.
When I talk about hardcore vs. casual, I talk specifically about the required time investment. As I wrote earlier, since there are plenty of examples where hardcore games are easy and casual games hard, it is not sensible to make assumptions about difficulty with regards to the time investment required.
To say difficulty plays a role, the term "hardcore" becomes problematic. First of all, as you've said, difficulty is subjective, but it is also dependent on the competition in any multiplayer game. You will run into trouble by using one term to refer to both time investment and difficulty. Therefore I recommend that you, also, would use the term hardcore only to refer to the time investment and then talk about difficulty separately.
I hope this clarifies the matter somewhat.
At this point you're just flatly making up your own definitions to retroactively prove a point. Casual friendly doesn't mean anti-hardcore, it means pro casual... that's why it's CALLED casual friendly. Casual gamers are gamers who don't put as much time into their game of choice. This is NOT as complicated as you're making it out to be.
But let's think about this for a second. Assume your arbitrary, self-imposed definition of the term casual friendly were correct, that is to say that a casual friendly game is simply one where you don't have to be hardcore. A hardcore gamer (a person who puts a lot of time into his game) is going to be more skilled than somebody who DOESN'T. So if you're saying these games are targeting a third group of players (anti-hardcore), those games are still going to be easier than a game that is targeting more hardcore players. You're making up a fake distinction when there isn't one.
Just to add: what do you have to say about "hardcore" modes in games that merely increase the difficulty? Like hardcore mode in new vegas or games like god of war. They don't increase the amount of play time required, they increase the difficulty.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Yeah I'm pretty stubborn. I only argue about a few things and only when I'm fairly certain I'm right... so when I do get into an argument I take it pretty seriously. It does really bother me that the best case scenario in an internet argument is the other guy just ignores you. Nobody ever seems to want to admit they were wrong.
How can an opinion be right or wrong that isn't backed up by factual evidence. I'm all for opinions but c'mon man, you must back up facts with evidence.
From your posts I'm getting you mean "more challenging" when you are refering to "hardcore games". Which is totally subjective.
You've not actually explained why SC2 is a hardcore game? All RTS games are built around the fact that thinking is limited (as everything is done in real time). IMO the less time I need to think the easier the game is. IMO, TBS games are the most "hardcore" genre I've encountered.
It's why most popular games are RTS & FPS games, because you don't have to actually think too hard to advance. SC2 campaign was easy, due to the game mechanics. Could they have made it more challenging? sure. Would the masses purchased it though? No.
The fact that you don't need a manual with these game just shows how easily accessible they are.
You can choose to play SC2 more hardcore if the single player game wasn't challenging enough by setting challenges for yourself through out the campaign. Use less resoucre/units, whatever.
Also, I'm getting a more PvP/competitive vibe from yourself. But as we are discussing game mechanics and not competitiveness (see yellow) I didn't mention that part of the game. The part where the player actually chooses to turn his experience hardcore or not.
This is also not a case of a hardcore game being played casual like from the "data" you pulled.
See, nowhere did I state your OPINION was wrong. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, the only reason I stopped responding was that, like other posters have mentioned, this is going round in circles. Which will happen when opinions, not facts are being thrown about.
A better player (more skilled) will find games to be less hard than an inferior player. But we're not comparing players, we're comparing games. That skilled player will find harder games to be more hard than easier games.
Yeah I'm pretty stubborn. I only argue about a few things and only when I'm fairly certain I'm right... so when I do get into an argument I take it pretty seriously. It does really bother me that the best case scenario in an internet argument is the other guy just ignores you. Nobody ever seems to want to admit they were wrong.
How can an opinion be right or wrong that isn't backed up by factual evidence. I'm all for opinions but c'mon man, you must back up facts with evidence.
From your posts I'm getting you mean "more challenging" when you are refering to "hardcore games". Which is totally subjective.
You've not actually explained why SC2 is a hardcore game? All RTS games are built around the fact that thinking is limited (as everything is done in real time). IMO the less time I need to think the easier the game is. IMO, TBS games are the most "hardcore" genre I've encountered.
It's why most popular games are RTS & FPS games, because you don't have to actually think too hard to advance. SC2 campaign was easy, due to the game mechanics. Could they have made it more challenging? sure. Would the masses purchased it though? No.
The fact that you don't need a manual with these game just shows how easily accessible they are.
You can choose to play SC2 more hardcore if the single player game wasn't challenging enough by setting challenges for yourself through out the campaign. Use less resoucre/units, whatever.
Also, I'm getting a more PvP/competitive vibe from yourself. But as we are discussing game mechanics and not competitiveness (see yellow) I didn't mention that part of the game. The part where the player actually chooses to turn his experience hardcore or not.
This is also not a case of a hardcore game being played casual like from the "data" you pulled.
See, nowhere did I state your OPINION was wrong. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, the only reason I stopped responding was that, like other posters have mentioned, this is going round in circles. Which will happen when opinions, not facts are being thrown about.
You're arguing about this because you think you're right. Opinions can be right or wrong. You can convince people to change their opinions. These are all very real things that happen. I'm saying a lot of times on the internet the person who realizes they were wrong just leaves or stops responding instead of saying "maybe you're right!." So your point is that nobody can/should change their mind in an argument? I don't follow.
I've highlighted in red the important part of your post. This is what I'm saying. A game has to be relatively easy to appeal to the masses, to appeal to casual gamers. If you agree with that then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
Originally posted by HolophonistYou're arguing about this because you think you're right. Opinions can be right or wrong. You can convince people to change their opinions. These are all very real things that happen. I'm saying a lot of times on the internet the person who realizes they were wrong just leaves or stops responding instead of saying "maybe you're right!." So your point is that nobody can/should change their mind in an argument? I don't follow.
I've highlighted in red the important part of your post. This is what I'm saying. A game has to be relatively easy to appeal to the masses, to appeal to casual gamers. If you agree with that then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
I was just disagreeing with what you regard as hardcore only games. Most games have varying skill needed to be competent at the mechanics. However, I still believe that ALL games are easily accesible casual games. And have been since I got involved in gaming back in the 80's.
It's only been the occasional time I've resorted to actually reading a manual as the game overwhelmed me. (Looking at you Civilization 2 )
But to me that doesn't make the game more hardcore. There's just a lot more to take in, it's more challenging.
This is the first time I've come across someone meaning it to mean more challenging. I've tried searching and it's not a commonly shared viewpoint.
Opinion's can be changed. If someday some evidence comes to light that a God does exist I will change my opinion. But untill that day I can still have my opinion he may not exist.
You are gonna have to do more than just "Becuase I say so" to get me to change my opinion. I'm not try to change yours either because if you do mean hardcore to mean challenging then I can't judge what you find challenging.
Originally posted by HolophonistYou're arguing about this because you think you're right. Opinions can be right or wrong. You can convince people to change their opinions. These are all very real things that happen. I'm saying a lot of times on the internet the person who realizes they were wrong just leaves or stops responding instead of saying "maybe you're right!." So your point is that nobody can/should change their mind in an argument? I don't follow.
I've highlighted in red the important part of your post. This is what I'm saying. A game has to be relatively easy to appeal to the masses, to appeal to casual gamers. If you agree with that then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
I was just disagreeing with what you regard as hardcore only games. Most games have varying skill needed to be competent at the mechanics. However, I still believe that ALL games are easily accesible casual games. And have been since I got involved in gaming back in the 80's.
It's only been the occasional time I've resorted to actually reading a manual as the game overwhelmed me. (Looking at you Civilization 2 )
But to me that doesn't make the game more hardcore. There's just a lot more to take in, it's more challenging.
This is the first time I've come across someone meaning it to mean more challenging. I've tried searching and it's not a commonly shared viewpoint.
Opinion's can be changed. If someday some evidence comes to light that a God does exist I will change my opinion. But untill that day I can still have my opinion he may not exist.
You are gonna have to do more than just "Becuase I say so" to get me to change my opinion. I'm not try to change yours either because if you do mean hardcore to mean challenging then I can't judge what you find challenging.
I honestly don't know what's going on in this conversation between you and I LOL.
I don't think I said that SC2 was "hardcore only." But whether I said that or not, it's not the point I'm trying to make here. The point I'm trying to make (and have made over and over) is that games that appeal to casual players (casual friendly games) will be easier than hardcore games, in general. That's what this discussion is about.
And I have never even come close to resorting to just "because I said so." I've gone into great detail explaining the logical thought process leading me to believe that casual friendly games are going to typically be easier than hardcore games.
As the title says, I feel as if there is a newer generation of gamers,....<WALL OF TEXT> ......
/end-lackOfCoffee-rant
Sincerely,
Bear
Being an 80ies guy and having played the orignal Everquest back when it had a sub I could agree with a lot of what you say and feel.
However.... you could say the same about the newer generation of moviegoers, music listeners or whatever. But its simply that "the times they are a changing".
If its evolution or de-evolution whats going on with MMOs will have to be judged by the generation after the current I'm afraid ; )
AS of posting this, I have only read the first page of responses..
I do agree with OP, and would like to share my views on what I feel is related.
As someone who has been playing MMO's since before the term even existed; I feel there has been a change for the worst in how the genre/community has turned out.
Without doing the whole chicken/egg debate on who started it, who is to blame, I would like to explain why I feel this way.
Back in the day it was actually ORPG's, as there really wasn't that many people to play. the focus was on the RPG part, with a multiplayer element. As technology improved & became more accessible to greater numbers, this turned into MMORPG's
However this has rapidly turned into MMO-<not-really-rpg>.
Now it appears to me, that there is more focus on END game, then the actual JOURNEY. Problem with this, is anyone who has ever played & been committed too and understands what an RPG is; will know that RPG's are all about the JOURNEY, about developing your character as you progress through the (virtual) world.
Just imagine if "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" was cut down to a mere 60 minute TV show, instead of 3x 2hour+ movies? It is actually very possibly, based on how the MMO community desires, and what Developers are actually producing now; and it would look a bit like this::
"5-10 minutes highlighting the peaceful hobbit communities and how they become aware of great evil in the world, 10-15 minutes gathering support from around the world, 20-30 minutes having an epic battle to return the world to peace, and the remainder celebrating winning the battle"
You may think this is absurd, but allot of the mmo community actually want to be at end game overnight or sooner, and could not care less for the journey or character development. And this... is where the blurred line of MMORPG and MOBA occurs.
There are plenty of games which have MMO elements, without the RPG element. ie, look at the Call of Duty franchise. Sure as you battle it out, you unlock new items; but its ultimately a massive skirmish relying on skill. There is not the character development aspect experienced in RPG's, rather increase skill through practice to make use of what tools you have access too.
For me, I like the RPG element, and being able to play with other people vs just NPC is what makes MMORPGs so appealing.
Sadly the trend of games released and the communities that plays them, seems to me like its all just Medieval/Fantasy/Sci-Fi versions on COD now.... jump into endgame, repeat until you pass out, hopefully gaining actual skill and some better gear to give you an advantage.. while your ego gets inflated..
As an XBOX 360 owner, who played CODBO for quite sometime; you might want to consider how many of the online players have actually played through the campaign, or even played any of it? You will find, most have jumped straight into the online battles, not understanding the relevance of the maps and weapons, and how it all fits into what the game is actually about.
Originally posted by Scot The new generation has not been given a chance to get it, so it is hardly surprising they do not realise what they are missing.
That is such a cop-out response from the vets.
How?
It's difficult to fully appreciate or understand something that you have never experienced first hand. Pretty basic stuff, bud.
Sure, bud, but the glaring assumption here is to think the only reason not to like old-school is not to have experienced it.
Cop-out? Who rattled your helm? If they can't play old school they are not going to have any idea what its like. We can argue the pros and cons, but if you have only played easyMMOs that's all the new generation are going to know. Old school to me has a lot to offer in terms of gameplay and game longevity. But I think many of the new generation would throw their hands up in horror if they played an old school game, the question is why?
Lets look at an example rather than just tossing words around. We saw from that news item on Nintendo that they try out young players on the old Super Mario Brothers to see what young players make of old games. The new players found the old gameplay incredibly hard and most just gave up. They had a difficult time even understanding the concept of there being something lethal in a game. A pit of doom did not make sense to them, they just kept jumping down and expected to run along the bottom.
All of us who want a return to old school only want certain elements brought back, and to what degree, well that's the question. We don't want a return to corpse runs and any other MMO equivalents of pits of doom. But the fact is that todays gamers have such a hand held carebear experience that even introducing some moderate increases to challenge would flummox many of them.
The only way I see there being a return to old school in any area of gaming is if we have a new hit based on some of those old principles. Gaming companies would then jump on the bandwagon, which has been the history of MMOs since WoW. Until then gameplay will stay where it is now, firmly in easyMMOde.
its been overly steamlined where features and conveniences slowly remove gameplay, challenges, community, downtime, unique starting areas, open worlds, travel, etc. My belief why players request for streamed line gaming the progression mechanisms in the game become redundant and just road blocks to the end game and have no value to the players.
Removing ....
gameplay - sure .. remove the boring (to me) gameplay like slow travel, or looking for group
challenges - this is not good ... but there are still hard mode stuff, and games like PoE (which is listed as a MMO here) is pretty challenging
community - i don't play games for community
downtime - good .. the less the better (for me)
unique starting areas - well ... more content is better ... so i agree with this one
open world - meh ... instanced gameplay is better (for me)
travel - i don't play games to walk around .. so yeah!
... and progression mechanism redundant? Just see ARPGs for streamline gameplay and nothing but progression. It can be done ... MMORPGs can learn from ARPGs. Just put in random dungeons, and good loot system.
So to sum it up:
1. You are not interested in any kind of RPG as in actual Role Play.
2. Instanced games are all you need
3. You don't play for the community
So the conclusion clearly is you are not looking for MMORPGS. Why are you posting in this thread ? Go play a MOBA, that's your style of game.
Originally posted by BearKnight As the title says, I feel as if there is a newer generation of gamers,.... ....../end-lackOfCoffee-rantSincerely,Bear
Being an 80ies guy and having played the orignal Everquest back when it had a sub I could agree with a lot of what you say and feel.
However.... you could say the same about the newer generation of moviegoers, music listeners or whatever. But its simply that "the times they are a changing".
If its evolution or de-evolution whats going on with MMOs will have to be judged by the generation after the current I'm afraid ; )
The problem is that with MMORPGs this shift from old-school to new-school brought with it an increase in the playerbase. It's not simply that the times are changing; it's a deliberate move to make the genre more mainstream which brings with it certain unfortunate changes to the games.
Indeed. And maybe there are just a few jaded old timers who think MMORPGs can only be done one way ("theirs") and anything else is heresy.
Spock to Kirk in Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country:
"Is it possible that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?"
But they hadn't and they didn't need replacing by you.
If they can "reimagine" Star Trek and it can do that well with a makeover who is to say an old MMO cannot be reimagined with top notch graphics and do the same?
As the title says, I feel as if there is a newer generation of gamers,.... ......
/end-lackOfCoffee-rant
Sincerely,
Bear
Being an 80ies guy and having played the orignal Everquest back when it had a sub I could agree with a lot of what you say and feel.
However.... you could say the same about the newer generation of moviegoers, music listeners or whatever. But its simply that "the times they are a changing".
If its evolution or de-evolution whats going on with MMOs will have to be judged by the generation after the current I'm afraid ; )
The problem is that with MMORPGs this shift from old-school to new-school brought with it an increase in the playerbase. It's not simply that the times are changing; it's a deliberate move to make the genre more mainstream which brings with it certain unfortunate changes to the games.
Personally I would love to have my old Everquest back - including the playerbase.
But gaming reflects the cold, hard reality: The majority always gets what it wants - no matter if they are "wrong" or "right" (by who's standards anyway?)
So the way todays MMOs are designed is the way the majority wants them, it's really that simple. Those of us who don't like it have to play along, find a niche game or return to P&P - and patiently wait till the tides turn and old-school is the new "cool" ; )
I'm up to page 38 so apologies for skipping the rest.
Originally posted by colddog04 Time commitment is not based on how difficult a game is inherently.
Interesting to see you think SWTOR is the best game ever; but I could not disagree more with your assessment of difficulty.
Originally posted by colddog04 I'll let you guys get back to it. I expect at least 2 posts in a row after this otherwise I'll be disappointed.
You sound bitter.
Originally posted by colddog04 But it's not. That's what everyone has been trying to tell you.
Funny, I saw just a few posters here agree with you.
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
I give new MMORPGs a chance but really the genre is very narrow when you get beyond the superficial. I had more deaths in ESO this weekend then I had in all MMORPGs combined I've played in recent so maybe things are truly changing for better or worst. Though my sandbox heart thinks the setting would make an awesome sandbox.
Indeed. And maybe there are just a few jaded old timers who think MMORPGs can only be done one way ("theirs") and anything else is heresy.
Spock to Kirk in Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country:
"Is it possible that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?"
But they hadn't and they didn't need replacing by you.
First, I'm also one of those oldtimers, I'm just not jaded and still enjoy newer games and the improvements they bring to the table.
Second, I never pretended to replace anyone.
I was thinking of Picard replacing Kirk/Spock there.
I too find good elements in todays MMOs, but on the balance we have lost more than we have gained. We have gained few good new gaming systems, the games are smaller, we have lost good gaming systems or had them denigrated and have less lore. Of course there have been exceptions but not on every count. What we have gained is mostly in the area of graphics and audio, I would put it to you that games have always got better in those areas so I am not sure that counts as a New MMO success. We do have better UI's, alternative combat (some better, some worse), a more universal buddy system; and number of gameplay systems like looking for raid that are good or bad depending on who you talk to.
So overall for me the loses were greater than the gains.
Lots of rumbling when "we all know"(tm) that the problem is in.... easy money.
RPG (the paper ones log time ago) were about adventures. Your char was having new adventure or died and your had to make a new one. Your GM had to have new ideas or you did not play at all. Now with computer based RPG (which is what I thing MMO RPG were to be) developers seam to think that all they need is create a game once and form time to time add new levels or new dungeon.
It wont work! Every rpg need a GM, a story teller, someone or something that will simulate all the work a GM made in paper based rpg. New ideas, new parts of world, new enemies, and most of all - an element of surprise, which I'm afraid can't be achieved by per-programed scripts.
Even most sandboxed game in the world will end at some point if there is no GM equivalent. There must be something or someone driving the story (or the world or the quests) forward. Else players will get bored with "It is all the same" or "I did everything" and game will eventually die.
So why easy money? Well, because developers can't "program a GM" (a really good one that is), but they want to earn money on this new hype acronym "MMO" - they program and sell poor imitations and false promises of what a computer based RPG supposed to be.
As the title says, I feel as if there is a newer generation of gamers,.... ......
/end-lackOfCoffee-rant
Sincerely,
Bear
Being an 80ies guy and having played the orignal Everquest back when it had a sub I could agree with a lot of what you say and feel.
However.... you could say the same about the newer generation of moviegoers, music listeners or whatever. But its simply that "the times they are a changing".
If its evolution or de-evolution whats going on with MMOs will have to be judged by the generation after the current I'm afraid ; )
The problem is that with MMORPGs this shift from old-school to new-school brought with it an increase in the playerbase. It's not simply that the times are changing; it's a deliberate move to make the genre more mainstream which brings with it certain unfortunate changes to the games.
Personally I would love to have my old Everquest back - including the playerbase.
But gaming reflects the cold, hard reality: The majority always gets what it wants - no matter if they are "wrong" or "right" (by who's standards anyway?)
So the way todays MMOs are designed is the way the majority wants them, it's really that simple. Those of us who don't like it have to play along, find a niche game or return to P&P - and patiently wait till the tides turn and old-school is the new "cool" ; )
Oh don't get my wrong, I agree with you on that. There's no denying that more people are willing to play these themepark games than the "oldschool" sandbox games. Obviously you can get into some deeper conversations regarding player retention and if it's accurate to say they "prefer" something when they haven't ever tried the alternative, but as you say the cold hard reality is that themeparks won out, which is why we have them.
they dont care about why MMOs came to be, they just know it's the new "cool" way to play games and they are just thrilled to death that their favorite single player IPs (round pegs) are cramming themselves into square holes.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
I think where new MMO's miss out today as they are doing too much mediocre work and not enough specialized excellence. They want one game that will appeal to everyone at the cost of being mediocre. This is where I think some of the focused MMO's like Star Citizen and Camelot Unchained will prevail as they are focusing on a smaller objective in order to provide what I call specialized excellence.
Let's face it, EQ was a hardcore PvE game and that is where it really excelled. DAoC was a great PvP game. Vanilla WoW was a great casual PvE game and from there is where the MMO scene got muddled with jack of all trades and master of none.
Indeed. And maybe there are just a few jaded old timers who think MMORPGs can only be done one way ("theirs") and anything else is heresy.
Spock to Kirk in Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country:
"Is it possible that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?"
But they hadn't and they didn't need replacing by you.
First, I'm also one of those oldtimers, I'm just not jaded and still enjoy newer games and the improvements they bring to the table.
Second, I never pretended to replace anyone.
I was thinking of Picard replacing Kirk/Spock there.
I too find good elements in todays MMOs, but on the balance we have lost more than we have gained. We have gained few good new gaming systems, the games are smaller, we have lost good gaming systems or had them denigrated and have less lore. Of course there have been exceptions but not on every count. What we have gained is mostly in the area of graphics and audio, I would put it to you that games have always got better in those areas so I am not sure that counts as a New MMO success. We do have better UI's, alternative combat (some better, some worse), a more universal buddy system; and number of gameplay systems like looking for raid that are good or bad depending on who you talk to.
So overall for me the loses were greater than the gains.
I agree completely and this is something I was thinking about earlier today. Newer games are given credit for certain advancements that maybe they shouldn't be credited with. I think of it like adjusting for inflation when looking at certain economic indicators. If you could adjust for the average level of polish and aesthetics in gaming in general, I'm not sure these MMOs have much more to offer.
That isn't to say that things haven't changed for the better at all, I just think it's important to keep things in perspective.
Comments
But they are different within this context. One is skill, one is grind - other is irrelevant, one is not. I've explained it multiple times by now. I've quoted articles for you.
Did or did I not explain the difference between a "casual game" and a casual friendly game? Explanation at the end of the reply.
You wanted me to provide an example, so I provided it. The example supports my argument: "Hardcore games are not necessarily hard, nor are casual friendly games (or even casual games) necessarily easy." Because examples of both exists, it would be foolish to make assumptions about difficulty on the basis of how casual friendly a game is.
Not only does accessibility mean how accessible a game is not only from first time adoption but also from then onwards. This is the third time I am explaining this.
So they are essentially playiing a different game from SC2 then? I am curious, if I'm playing an RPG mod on SC2 engine, how does that translate to SC2 multiplayer being easier for me?
Yes, difficulty is related to accessibility. yes, accessibility is related to casual friendliness. Yes, the niche which is referred to as "casual gamers" is more likely to enjoy accessible games. No, that does not mean casual friendly games are targeted for this niche.
Casual friendly games, such as League of Legends, are drastically different from "casual games" which include titles such as Angry Birds, Farmville and Wii Sports. "Casual games are generally played by people who do not identify themselves as gamers.
See the end of the reply for more clarification.
I really don't care which game is superior to which. I am not here to argue that. See the end of the reply for a thorough explanation between casual gamer, casual game and casual friendly game.
Lets try this:
If I were to divide games crudely into three categories...
...I may explain my view better.
"Casual games" are designed for "casual gamers", hardcore games for gamers who enjoy hardcore games, and casual friendly games are designed for gamers who don't enjoy hardcore games. You can be a hardcore player of any game - even Farmville. That is to say, you can invest as much time on any game as you want to, but it is not required. However, this does not mean you cannot play hardcore games casually, only they are not really designed for it. Hence the wording "casual friendly" when talking about games that are.
When I talk about hardcore vs. casual, I talk specifically about the required time investment. As I wrote earlier, since there are plenty of examples where hardcore games are easy and casual games hard, it is not sensible to make assumptions about difficulty with regards to the time investment required.
To say difficulty plays a role, the term "hardcore" becomes problematic. First of all, as you've said, difficulty is subjective, but it is also dependent on the competition in any multiplayer game. You will run into trouble by using one term to refer to both time investment and difficulty. Therefore I recommend that you, also, would use the term hardcore only to refer to the time investment and then talk about difficulty separately.
I hope this clarifies the matter somewhat.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Exactly. That is why it is a cop-out response.
I don't know why gladiatorial matches are relevant tho.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I`m walking away from this one, lol.
It`s funny how many incredibly odd debates take place on this site; way too much twisting and turning.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think this is like the 4th time in a row you've just stated that they're different within this context without explaining how they're different. They're both things that make the game less accessible. You can't just simply say they're different. HOW are they different within this context??? When you're talking about accessibility, they're both things that make the game less accessible.
Well I'm not interested in having some pointless discussion where you make up small differences between terms. Not only that, this whole discussion from the beginning has been about casual friendly games.
What part of the example supports your claim that "...nor are casual friendly games (or even casual games) necessarily easy."?? You give an example of a hardcore game and somehow determine something about casual/casual friendly games?
Then how does the LoL example of grinding make any sense? Who cares whether or not accessible means accessible later AS WELL as accessible at first? The point is it has to be accessible at first, and a mechanically difficult game is not.
It doesn't translate into the 1v1 ladder being easier for you. I'm explaining a situation where SC2 was losing players to LoL and they took these measure to make their product (SC2) more casual. The things they did included many things, including an emphasis on these easier game modes. NONE of the things they did had anything to do with how long the play sessions are. Think back to when this discussion first started so many moons ago. Your simplistic explanation was to claim that SC2 was more casual than LoL because the matches were shorter.
So difficulty is related to accessibility and accessibility is related to casual friendliness. Is casual friendliness related to casual friendly games?
It's not about superiority. I'm saying they left SC2 to switch to LoL BECAUSE LoL is more casual.
At this point you're just flatly making up your own definitions to retroactively prove a point. Casual friendly doesn't mean anti-hardcore, it means pro casual... that's why it's CALLED casual friendly. Casual gamers are gamers who don't put as much time into their game of choice. This is NOT as complicated as you're making it out to be.
But let's think about this for a second. Assume your arbitrary, self-imposed definition of the term casual friendly were correct, that is to say that a casual friendly game is simply one where you don't have to be hardcore. A hardcore gamer (a person who puts a lot of time into his game) is going to be more skilled than somebody who DOESN'T. So if you're saying these games are targeting a third group of players (anti-hardcore), those games are still going to be easier than a game that is targeting more hardcore players. You're making up a fake distinction when there isn't one.
Just to add: what do you have to say about "hardcore" modes in games that merely increase the difficulty? Like hardcore mode in new vegas or games like god of war. They don't increase the amount of play time required, they increase the difficulty.
How can an opinion be right or wrong that isn't backed up by factual evidence. I'm all for opinions but c'mon man, you must back up facts with evidence.
From your posts I'm getting you mean "more challenging" when you are refering to "hardcore games". Which is totally subjective.
You've not actually explained why SC2 is a hardcore game? All RTS games are built around the fact that thinking is limited (as everything is done in real time). IMO the less time I need to think the easier the game is. IMO, TBS games are the most "hardcore" genre I've encountered.
It's why most popular games are RTS & FPS games, because you don't have to actually think too hard to advance. SC2 campaign was easy, due to the game mechanics. Could they have made it more challenging? sure. Would the masses purchased it though? No.
The fact that you don't need a manual with these game just shows how easily accessible they are.
You can choose to play SC2 more hardcore if the single player game wasn't challenging enough by setting challenges for yourself through out the campaign. Use less resoucre/units, whatever.
Also, I'm getting a more PvP/competitive vibe from yourself. But as we are discussing game mechanics and not competitiveness (see yellow) I didn't mention that part of the game. The part where the player actually chooses to turn his experience hardcore or not.
This is also not a case of a hardcore game being played casual like from the "data" you pulled.
See, nowhere did I state your OPINION was wrong. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, the only reason I stopped responding was that, like other posters have mentioned, this is going round in circles. Which will happen when opinions, not facts are being thrown about.
You're arguing about this because you think you're right. Opinions can be right or wrong. You can convince people to change their opinions. These are all very real things that happen. I'm saying a lot of times on the internet the person who realizes they were wrong just leaves or stops responding instead of saying "maybe you're right!." So your point is that nobody can/should change their mind in an argument? I don't follow.
I've highlighted in red the important part of your post. This is what I'm saying. A game has to be relatively easy to appeal to the masses, to appeal to casual gamers. If you agree with that then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
I was just disagreeing with what you regard as hardcore only games. Most games have varying skill needed to be competent at the mechanics. However, I still believe that ALL games are easily accesible casual games. And have been since I got involved in gaming back in the 80's.
It's only been the occasional time I've resorted to actually reading a manual as the game overwhelmed me. (Looking at you Civilization 2
)
But to me that doesn't make the game more hardcore. There's just a lot more to take in, it's more challenging.
This is the first time I've come across someone meaning it to mean more challenging. I've tried searching and it's not a commonly shared viewpoint.
Opinion's can be changed. If someday some evidence comes to light that a God does exist I will change my opinion. But untill that day I can still have my opinion he may not exist.
You are gonna have to do more than just "Becuase I say so" to get me to change my opinion. I'm not try to change yours either because if you do mean hardcore to mean challenging then I can't judge what you find challenging.
I honestly don't know what's going on in this conversation between you and I LOL.
I don't think I said that SC2 was "hardcore only." But whether I said that or not, it's not the point I'm trying to make here. The point I'm trying to make (and have made over and over) is that games that appeal to casual players (casual friendly games) will be easier than hardcore games, in general. That's what this discussion is about.
And I have never even come close to resorting to just "because I said so." I've gone into great detail explaining the logical thought process leading me to believe that casual friendly games are going to typically be easier than hardcore games.
Being an 80ies guy and having played the orignal Everquest back when it had a sub I could agree with a lot of what you say and feel.
However.... you could say the same about the newer generation of moviegoers, music listeners or whatever. But its simply that "the times they are a changing".
If its evolution or de-evolution whats going on with MMOs will have to be judged by the generation after the current I'm afraid ; )
AS of posting this, I have only read the first page of responses..
I do agree with OP, and would like to share my views on what I feel is related.
As someone who has been playing MMO's since before the term even existed; I feel there has been a change for the worst in how the genre/community has turned out.
Without doing the whole chicken/egg debate on who started it, who is to blame, I would like to explain why I feel this way.
Back in the day it was actually ORPG's, as there really wasn't that many people to play. the focus was on the RPG part, with a multiplayer element. As technology improved & became more accessible to greater numbers, this turned into MMORPG's
However this has rapidly turned into MMO-<not-really-rpg>.
Now it appears to me, that there is more focus on END game, then the actual JOURNEY. Problem with this, is anyone who has ever played & been committed too and understands what an RPG is; will know that RPG's are all about the JOURNEY, about developing your character as you progress through the (virtual) world.
Just imagine if "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" was cut down to a mere 60 minute TV show, instead of 3x 2hour+ movies? It is actually very possibly, based on how the MMO community desires, and what Developers are actually producing now; and it would look a bit like this::
"5-10 minutes highlighting the peaceful hobbit communities and how they become aware of great evil in the world, 10-15 minutes gathering support from around the world, 20-30 minutes having an epic battle to return the world to peace, and the remainder celebrating winning the battle"
You may think this is absurd, but allot of the mmo community actually want to be at end game overnight or sooner, and could not care less for the journey or character development. And this... is where the blurred line of MMORPG and MOBA occurs.
There are plenty of games which have MMO elements, without the RPG element. ie, look at the Call of Duty franchise. Sure as you battle it out, you unlock new items; but its ultimately a massive skirmish relying on skill. There is not the character development aspect experienced in RPG's, rather increase skill through practice to make use of what tools you have access too.
For me, I like the RPG element, and being able to play with other people vs just NPC is what makes MMORPGs so appealing.
Sadly the trend of games released and the communities that plays them, seems to me like its all just Medieval/Fantasy/Sci-Fi versions on COD now.... jump into endgame, repeat until you pass out, hopefully gaining actual skill and some better gear to give you an advantage.. while your ego gets inflated..
As an XBOX 360 owner, who played CODBO for quite sometime; you might want to consider how many of the online players have actually played through the campaign, or even played any of it? You will find, most have jumped straight into the online battles, not understanding the relevance of the maps and weapons, and how it all fits into what the game is actually about.
And this is how modern MMORPG's are turning out.
MY two cents. Thanks
Cop-out? Who rattled your helm? If they can't play old school they are not going to have any idea what its like. We can argue the pros and cons, but if you have only played easyMMOs that's all the new generation are going to know. Old school to me has a lot to offer in terms of gameplay and game longevity. But I think many of the new generation would throw their hands up in horror if they played an old school game, the question is why?
Lets look at an example rather than just tossing words around. We saw from that news item on Nintendo that they try out young players on the old Super Mario Brothers to see what young players make of old games. The new players found the old gameplay incredibly hard and most just gave up. They had a difficult time even understanding the concept of there being something lethal in a game. A pit of doom did not make sense to them, they just kept jumping down and expected to run along the bottom.
All of us who want a return to old school only want certain elements brought back, and to what degree, well that's the question. We don't want a return to corpse runs and any other MMO equivalents of pits of doom. But the fact is that todays gamers have such a hand held carebear experience that even introducing some moderate increases to challenge would flummox many of them.
The only way I see there being a return to old school in any area of gaming is if we have a new hit based on some of those old principles. Gaming companies would then jump on the bandwagon, which has been the history of MMOs since WoW. Until then gameplay will stay where it is now, firmly in easyMMOde.
So to sum it up:
1. You are not interested in any kind of RPG as in actual Role Play.
2. Instanced games are all you need
3. You don't play for the community
So the conclusion clearly is you are not looking for MMORPGS. Why are you posting in this thread ? Go play a MOBA, that's your style of game.
Being an 80ies guy and having played the orignal Everquest back when it had a sub I could agree with a lot of what you say and feel.
However.... you could say the same about the newer generation of moviegoers, music listeners or whatever. But its simply that "the times they are a changing".
If its evolution or de-evolution whats going on with MMOs will have to be judged by the generation after the current I'm afraid ; )
The problem is that with MMORPGs this shift from old-school to new-school brought with it an increase in the playerbase. It's not simply that the times are changing; it's a deliberate move to make the genre more mainstream which brings with it certain unfortunate changes to the games.I'm just amazed that this thread has come back around to the actual topic.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But they hadn't and they didn't need replacing by you.
If they can "reimagine" Star Trek and it can do that well with a makeover who is to say an old MMO cannot be reimagined with top notch graphics and do the same?
Personally I would love to have my old Everquest back - including the playerbase.
But gaming reflects the cold, hard reality: The majority always gets what it wants - no matter if they are "wrong" or "right" (by who's standards anyway?)
So the way todays MMOs are designed is the way the majority wants them, it's really that simple. Those of us who don't like it have to play along, find a niche game or return to P&P - and patiently wait till the tides turn and old-school is the new "cool" ; )
I'm up to page 38 so apologies for skipping the rest.
Interesting to see you think SWTOR is the best game ever; but I could not disagree more with your assessment of difficulty.
You sound bitter.
Funny, I saw just a few posters here agree with you.
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
I was thinking of Picard replacing Kirk/Spock there.
I too find good elements in todays MMOs, but on the balance we have lost more than we have gained. We have gained few good new gaming systems, the games are smaller, we have lost good gaming systems or had them denigrated and have less lore. Of course there have been exceptions but not on every count. What we have gained is mostly in the area of graphics and audio, I would put it to you that games have always got better in those areas so I am not sure that counts as a New MMO success. We do have better UI's, alternative combat (some better, some worse), a more universal buddy system; and number of gameplay systems like looking for raid that are good or bad depending on who you talk to.
So overall for me the loses were greater than the gains.
Can't really ask for more than that.
All that this wake needs is a eulogy. And maybe a lot of Irish whiskey.
Lots of rumbling when "we all know"(tm) that the problem is in.... easy money.
RPG (the paper ones log time ago) were about adventures. Your char was having new adventure or died and your had to make a new one. Your GM had to have new ideas or you did not play at all.
Now with computer based RPG (which is what I thing MMO RPG were to be) developers seam to think that all they need is create a game once and form time to time add new levels or new dungeon.
It wont work!
Every rpg need a GM, a story teller, someone or something that will simulate all the work a GM made in paper based rpg. New ideas, new parts of world, new enemies, and most of all - an element of surprise, which I'm afraid can't be achieved by per-programed scripts.
Even most sandboxed game in the world will end at some point if there is no GM equivalent. There must be something or someone driving the story (or the world or the quests) forward. Else players will get bored with "It is all the same" or "I did everything" and game will eventually die.
So why easy money?
Well, because developers can't "program a GM" (a really good one that is), but they want to earn money on this new hype acronym "MMO" - they program and sell poor imitations and false promises of what a computer based RPG supposed to be.
It is all about money. Easy money.
Oh don't get my wrong, I agree with you on that. There's no denying that more people are willing to play these themepark games than the "oldschool" sandbox games. Obviously you can get into some deeper conversations regarding player retention and if it's accurate to say they "prefer" something when they haven't ever tried the alternative, but as you say the cold hard reality is that themeparks won out, which is why we have them.
they dont care about why MMOs came to be, they just know it's the new "cool" way to play games and they are just thrilled to death that their favorite single player IPs (round pegs) are cramming themselves into square holes.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
I think where new MMO's miss out today as they are doing too much mediocre work and not enough specialized excellence. They want one game that will appeal to everyone at the cost of being mediocre. This is where I think some of the focused MMO's like Star Citizen and Camelot Unchained will prevail as they are focusing on a smaller objective in order to provide what I call specialized excellence.
Let's face it, EQ was a hardcore PvE game and that is where it really excelled. DAoC was a great PvP game. Vanilla WoW was a great casual PvE game and from there is where the MMO scene got muddled with jack of all trades and master of none.
I agree completely and this is something I was thinking about earlier today. Newer games are given credit for certain advancements that maybe they shouldn't be credited with. I think of it like adjusting for inflation when looking at certain economic indicators. If you could adjust for the average level of polish and aesthetics in gaming in general, I'm not sure these MMOs have much more to offer.
That isn't to say that things haven't changed for the better at all, I just think it's important to keep things in perspective.