It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
why is the general argument against twitch and depth in MMORPGs that the gamer must be compensated by the devs for their various inadequacies? Are those of you who play World of Warcraft communists or something? People are different with different abilities, they have strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone is the same, and they certainly shouldn't be compensated for their weaknesses. Do you expect the government to pay you $50,000 extra a year because you only make $30,000 a year when the average income for Americans is about $80,000 a year? Do you expect everybody else to run slower on a soccer field because you're slow? Do you expect your employer to make your work less hard because you're not smart enough to complete your current work? I don't think so, but if you do, I suggest moving to China.
Comments
how is this related to the title?
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Its the reason that MMORPGs lack depth, because people demand compensation for their lack of ability.
<modedit>
Its the reason that MMORPGs lack depth, because people demand compensation for their lack of ability.
<modedit>
Moving mouse 5 degrees to the right, and hitting '9' in a fraction of a second isn't something that deserves to be called an ability.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Its the reason that MMORPGs lack depth, because people demand compensation for their lack of ability.
<modedit>
Moving mouse 5 degrees to the right, and hitting '9' in a fraction of a second isn't something that deserves to be called an ability.
Its a hell of a lot more ability than sitting there with your hands off the keyboard with a target selected waiting for your character to finish auto attacking and casually pressing one of the number keys on your keyboard from time to time to activate an ability until your target is dead.
well enjoy your abilities(in whatever game you play).
I certainly won't be there, there are better ways to bring brainpower and strategy into a game.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
What a silly post. We are talking about GAMES. Games is about PAYING customers who get their ENTERTAINMENT.
It is not about some meaning of life. Developers better compensate for whatever needs and wants potential customers have. Otherwise, they will vote with their money.
As WOW has demonstrated succinctly, developers who listened to customers are rewarded.
I don't expect the government to pay me extra money. But I *do* expect game companies make games that I like. Otherwise, I won't be a customer.
What a silly post. We are talking about GAMES. Games is about PAYING customers who get their ENTERTAINMENT.
It is not about some meaning of life. Developers better compensate for whatever needs and wants potential customers have. Otherwise, they will vote with their money.
As WOW has demonstrated succinctly, developers who listened to customers are rewarded.
I don't expect the government to pay me extra money. But I *do* expect game companies make games that I like. Otherwise, I won't be a customer.
Congratulations on informing us all that you prefer easymode over a challenge. There are plenty of people who disagree with the game mechanics but play it anyway because they have nothing better to do and the game of choice has a large playerbase. As for WoW, its popular, people tell their friends, those people who do get addicted to it have little experience playing MMORPGs which is why they think its so damn good. Blizzard is not rewarded for making good games, they're rewarded for making mediocre games which appeal to the large masses of ignorant fools.
Sure it is. If that's not an "ability", than what is?
Not that that's the only skillset that deserves to be called an "ability", or the only type of skill that a game should be based around, but why is that any less deserving than other other "skill", like intellect for example?
If anything, it's more deserving than what typically determines victory in most MMORPG games: gear, luck, time spent playing, what class you happened to pick at the beginning of the game vs. what class you're fighting...
I won't insult anyone's gaming preference, and people are certainly free to play or not play as they wish, but I hope you're not seriously implying that twitch and strategy are mutually exclusive.
I agree some shooters are less brain-intensive than others; one reason I dislike UT but like Rainbow Six. Like I said before, there are many types of skill you can make relevant in a game. I believe the more of these you incorporate, intertwined, into your game, the more depth it will have and the better it will be.
Something like a heirarchy of Individual Skill, Small Group Tactics, Military Operations, Campaign Strategy, Operational Logistics, and National/Clan/Guild (whatever) Economy.
In such a game, a bunch of 13 year olds drinking Mountain Dew who know nothing about tactics and operations, who have no strategy, no supply, no backing of an organization with resources, is going to get their asses kicked - by people with superior organization, numbers, and equipment.
Cortanya,
Uhmmm...UT and Quake require quite a bit of tactics. Controlling weapons and power ups is where you get your strategy elements in those games. Thats probably why you liked R6 over those other games because you don't have to worry about your enemy picking up the +100 health power up or quad damage.
But you are right. To each his own. I'm just saying those games arn't all about twitch skill. They do require you to 'control' resources in a way.
No, see, most people who play SOCOM or Rainbow Six only see tactics as "Okay guys, you flank, Bob and I are going in the front." Because, you know, everything only has one definition.
---
He said to me, "On your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that going for me, which is nice.
I don't mean UT requires NO tactics at all, because it does, especially the newer ones.
I just personally prefer games with more realistic tactics (as well as realistic mechanics; no bunnyhopping or rocketjumping for me).
I used UT as an example because of its popular connotation as a RAAAAARRR!!!, run-in-and-shoot-everybody-up, RAAARRRRR! type of game.
IMO the older UT games, the original Quake and old-school DOOM require less complex tactics, which I suppose is where the stereotype comes from.
And as a personal opinion, I do believe tactical shooters generally require more strategic thought than fast-paced "action" shooters.
I know, dramatic, but look at anything that's popular. Mediocre, mindless entertainment, and styles. Nothing special or taxing. Look at just about anything, that's just the way it is.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
I don't see any games really compensating people for their inadequancies. And if any game does that, I think EVE would be such game, as there learning new skills is not as much based on player's achievements as it is based on the time passing IRL.
conclusion: EVE must be a communist game
conlusion from previous conclusion: it's sometimes possible to make incredibly stupid conclusions.
Sry about posting so stupid answer, but I don't think that this thread is good enough to deserve any good or well-tought answers.
What a silly post. We are talking about GAMES. Games is about PAYING customers who get their ENTERTAINMENT.
It is not about some meaning of life. Developers better compensate for whatever needs and wants potential customers have. Otherwise, they will vote with their money.
As WOW has demonstrated succinctly, developers who listened to customers are rewarded.
I don't expect the government to pay me extra money. But I *do* expect game companies make games that I like. Otherwise, I won't be a customer.
Congratulations on informing us all that you prefer easymode over a challenge. There are plenty of people who disagree with the game mechanics but play it anyway because they have nothing better to do and the game of choice has a large playerbase. As for WoW, its popular, people tell their friends, those people who do get addicted to it have little experience playing MMORPGs which is why they think its so damn good. Blizzard is not rewarded for making good games, they're rewarded for making mediocre games which appeal to the large masses of ignorant fools.
And congradulations for sticking your head in the sand. Even every FPS now has a casual mode. WOW is rated 93% on metacritics. I will take all the game reviewers' opinions over yours.
Challenges are WAY over rated. Games are ENTERTAINMENT and we should get our content in a stressfree environment. When we are done, we move onto the next game. If I want real challenges, I go back to my office and work.
I know, dramatic, but look at anything that's popular. Mediocre, mindless entertainment, and styles. Nothing special or taxing. Look at just about anything, that's just the way it is.
It is a cop-out to stick the word "mediocre" into things you don't like. Mindless does not equal bad. T2 is a great movie but still a mindless action flick.
Diablo is a fun game but still based on mindless, storyless hack-n-slash.
Halo3 is great because you can blow through it in 6 hours in casual mode and move onto the next game.
Entertainment is entertainment. Difficulty in entertainment is artificially induced anyway. I don't see a point to lock up all the content and don't let players see it unless they spent their live's work on a GAME.