Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
About the abundance of choice
Quirhid
Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
I don't remember where I heard this. In a video, podcast or whatever, there was a guy who talked about how the abundance of choice has made picky about what we watch, listen to, or read. He used TV shows as an example and stated how "back in the day" you didn't have as many channels as you have now, so you watched what was on and had a much better chance of learning to appreciate it.
If we apply that thought on all media and entertainment...
- we've always had the chance to listen to the genre of music we like,
- we can choose our news channels,
- what shows we follow,
- which forums we visit,
- which users we want to block
- and the games we want to play.
Think about that the next time someone suggests some sub-genre to break off or proposes a sub-forum or a whole new forum for a specific sub-genre. Also, if you look at some of the voiced reasons why people don't play a particular game seem really petty:
- "I played GW1 for 15 minutes, couldn't jump, uninstalled"
- "I don't play F2P"
- "I don't play games without crafting"
- "There was no elves" / "The game has elves"
- "I could not roll a female/male [insert class here]"
Preferences are one thing, but reading stuff like this I can't help but feel that all they are doing is coming up with excuses. If you had only one MMORPG, you'd learn to appreciate it, whether you initially didn't. Either that or you wouldn't be playing MMORPGs at all.
Can you call yourself a gamer if the only games you enjoy are MMOs? Or can you call yourself a "MMORPGer" if there is only one MMORPG type you like.
Your thoughts?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Comments
I used to be fine with a computer that had 5K of RAM. The existance of competition has allowed my standards to rise.
If I have a choice of entertainment, I choose the option which I expect I will most enjoy. I'm all for finding the fun, but I'm not in this for a "gamer" title.
Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Of course I'm a gamer, even though I only like MMORPGs. Is someone a sports fan if they only like to watch one sport? (My father really only enjoyed watching football and golf, didn't care for anything else, and maybe the Olympics.)
Since there is little agreement on MMORPG type, it's very easy to cross over in the genre, I've loved games like L1, L2, DAOC, Shadowbane, WOW, and EVE. OK, those are the only games I've really enjoyed for the longer term, but I did find fun for awhile in most other major titles since (for at least a month or 3 anyways)
And despite my mostly jaded attitude, I still look towards the horizon at some of the upcoming newer, titles, as I'm sure one day MMOs will change once again and perhaps start focusing more on game play elements that I enjoy.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Basically you saying this: Imagine you like cola but dislike cherry. And possibly if there were only cola with cherry flavour you may get used to it and drink.
The answer is NO. Chances are that people don't buy at all something that doesn't suit their needs well. So that's why we have all this cherry, lemon, whatever flavoured cola - to please everyone and get maximum profit by doing so.
P.S. Most (like 99%) "MMORPGers" don't role play so it's just "MMO gamers" at best. And since most MMOs now are more like SP games with random dudes in it... it's more like "online" and "offline" gamers.
What I am saying is that if you have only cherry flavored cola to drink, you are more likely to learn to appreciate it. Because you have choices, it is easy to dismiss cherry flavored cola, even if you could learn to like it eventually.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No MMO has ever delivered the game I've been dreaming to see ... to me, they're all still just shadows of the fantasy world I want (and probably always will be).
That said, each new generation of technology will affect my minimum expectations. For example, I revisited UO briefly after several years of playing 3d games and my imagination had a very hard time adjusting. I just couldn't see the world with my old eyes. When I tried Ryzom a few years back, I found it jarring that I couldn't jump over what seemed like tiny changes in elevation. So yes, even though graphics engines are not what I set out to look for in games, they do affect my minimum standards.
One of the reasons I've been nervous about the trend of adding full-speech dialogue is that I'm worried that once I get used it, I woun't be able to comfortably go back to text boxes ... but at the same time, the worlds I want to see cannot be done with pre-scripted diallogue.
( I don't want to talk about business models because I'll start twitching and frothing at the mouth )Yes and no,
Sure we have a lot of games with others on line, BUT they are shallow and not community worlds as mmos are to be !
So " Yes " we have more games to choose from " No " they are not mmo's.
There are two different matters. One is things you sure you don't like at all. For me that's free PvP with full loot. If there were only MMORPGs with free PvP and full loot that would be a dead genre for me. Like in your example with TV there is a choice not to watch TV at all (and you forgot to mention that). I just don't see a point buying something i'm sure i don't like. That's my money i and i don't have much to just throw em left and right.
The other thing is things you are not sure about. Like F2P. Usually i avoid this games because of poor quality, p2w and other issues. But if i'll hear from people that F2P game "A" is good i'll try it. I can even stick with it for some time (like i did with WoT). But that's because i lose nothing in trying it. If that will be a p2p game without any trial period or something i'll think twice about it and still there is a 50% chance i'll buy and try it (depends mostly on who recommend this game to me).
No, they are a [that sport] fan.
"Ah, you're a sports fan, too?"
"Yeah!"
"See the Lakers' game last night?"
"I don't follow basketball."
"So you're more of a baseball kind of guy?"
"Nope. Don't really care for baseball."
"Hockey?"
"Nah."
"Soccer? Football?"
"Football! Yes, I do watch football! And golf, too. Love golf."
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
How could you lump F2P into an argument about people being accepting of gameplay changes. Learning to enjoy or like things in life that offer a different experience than we expect is one thing. Asking people to spend more money than they used to on the same experience and questioning why they don't learn to adapt is idiotic.
You can't mix math with personal growth in this situation. If the same thing I used to get suddenly costs twice as much to be enjoyable I'm going to be pissed off and not buy the product. Its not a matter of me having too many choices and being picky.
Save that analogy for the intangible things like color, and game play design. Not math 101.
Nah... they are till a sports fan. If someone is a huge baseball fan and watches or listens to all 162+ games their team of choice plays and goes to a few games every year, they are pretty fanatic about a sport (literal definition of fan). It doesn't matter that they don't also follow basketball/football/hockey.
Same as person who plays EVE 6 hours a day for years and doesn't touch any other game is still both an "MMO fan and a "gamer" since EVE is in the genre of both "game" and "MMO"
That graph could be used to represent spending on any entertainment product or service. If anything, it means mobile games are simply business as usual.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Sure if one is FORCED to endure, put up with, and stomach something long enough one might actually find it not to be so bad but what is your point? Are you saying choice should be removed and people should have less options so they are forced to appreciate something that's a lot less then they might normally like?
With enough conditioning and reinforcement (brainwashing?) almost anyone can be made to see things in a different light and made to like things they never would have previously.
Kids might normally enjoy playing games on their xbox, but take all that away and lock them in a empty room long enough with nothing but a rock and they will learn to play with and appreciate the rock :P
Don't like cherries, or anything cherry flavored so unless cherry cola were the only thing to drink, becoming a choice of it versus dehydration/death, chances are I'm not going to drink it. Since games are not a matter of life or death, if there is a feature in it that I strongly dislike, chances are I'm not going to play it even if it is the only game available. If a game is good but doesn't meet all my preferences, I might play it. While people might adjust to certain features if that was all they knew in gaming, people have varying reasons for their deal-breakers when it comes to gaming, although those deal-breakers may seem silly to you. Also, MMOs are not the only genre of games out there. Even if there were only one MMO to play, while people might be less picky about certain features, if that MMO had features that people did not enjoy or didn't have features they wanted, they might simply choose not to play an MMO. If that MMO was the only video game in existence, if there were features that people did not like or a lack of features they did like, they might choose not to play video games.
As far as what defines a gamer, if how many games and what types of game determine whether or not a person can be considered a gamer, what else is going to go into what defines a gamer? how many hours they spend playing? how many different gaming systems they own? how much they read about or study games? What percentage of each is needed to be considered a gamer? Who deserves the title of gamer: the person who loves every genre but only plays one hour a week on the computer or the person who will only play one genre but owns every gaming system available and plays 3 or 4 hours every day? Isn't a [video] gamer someone who plays video games? Beyond that is there a definition of how many or what types of games the person must play/enjoy in order to be considered a gamer?
Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any."
Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Whoa there. You act as if the people that spend a ton on their passion are suckers for doing so. Worse, you're suggesting I am in favor of taking advantage of people. Let's dial it back a bit, green. Drop the ridiculous (and vulgar) comparisons, and don't assign motivations to people that aren't there.
Some people really get into their hobbies. They'll buy 50" and bigger TVs for their living room just to watch their favorite sport. There's even people that will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to own a used baseball glove.
They aren't being suckered into doing these things. They enjoy these things. That graph doesn't show anything shocking or new. It's the normal spread of how people consume entertainment products and services. TONS of passive folks and then a big soar at the end to the HOLYCOW super-fanatics.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The equal comparison - that 90% - is the crowd that watches the game for free on TV.
"What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally..."
What entertainment service or product are you comparing this to where everyone pays the same exact thing and there isn't that 10% spending a ton and 1% going crazy with it? I'm trying to figure out what you are basing any of this on.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In relation to the Free Play argument, you often see complaints about games 'no one's playing it, it's empty'. That's what the non paying players bring. Free players are actually a sort of game asset.
Though sometimes, some of them are a game detriment as well.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Actually, I disagree, there really is no bias here.
Someone saying they do not play F2P games, say so because they automatically write it off as bad. That is a bias.
Someone not playing a P2P game because of the extra cost that comes with it, isn't a bias. They would play the game if it fit with in what they feel it's worth is
Huge difference.
Well ....
I am not speaking for everyone, but I personally never met anyone who said they don't play P2P games because they all suck. It's always usually about money, which isn't a bias.
Other wise you would be right.