Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Bartle Test and how todays MMORPG dont satisfy Explorer, Socializers, Killers and Achievers
Interesting
Member UncommonPosts: 972
MMORPGs are not about balance, linearity and tightly controled/scripted content.
MMORPGs are about freedom of choice, different people around the world interacting with each other, and your choices causing effect on the world and other players and everything having meaningfull consequences. Its about to be immersed in a persistant virtual world to live in, ressembling multiple aspects of life, not just combat.
At a point not far in the past, we had the Bartle test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test
and it was meaningfull, because games actually satisfied
EXPLORERS
SOCIALIZERS
KILLERS
Nowadays, games no longer are developed for 3/4 of the player base.
ACHIEVERS? Only under certain circunstances.
Exploration became pointless, streamlined, removed the need to walk, discover, think for themselfs, it got dumbed down, no longer players can have completelly different experiences, everyone now is forced through the same linear script, no point in exploration even when its didnt got dumbed down by features such as "teleport". The worlds are not living breathing worlds, nothing meaningfull happens, no sense of fauna and flora, no nature events, nothing, worlds are completelly dead, spawn points are seeded and nothing ever changes in the worlds.
Socializers lost their freedom to cause effect, rule towns, territories, their socialy developed trading routes, the relation between the hundreds of different non combat activities no longer exist, people dont need each other anymore, not even for combat, games were made so people are independent, and can do everything at all levels from start to finish and all areas of the food chain SOLO. Action Houses destroyed economics, no politics, no management of towns, territories... everything got resumed in action houses for economy, global chats and one guild/clan feature.
Killers also got neglected by the wave of changes... they can no longer affect other players, everyone plays multiplayer online, but protected by an invisible bubble. People cant cause effect on others whatsoever, they cant attack other people at will, they cant attack other peoples targets at will, they cant cast spells or see them, or loot their stuff, or in any way whatsoever, god forbid, cause any effect on other players. No free for all pvp, not even with consequences, god forbid loot someones else, harass them, compete for the spot with them... Removed the free nature of grouping and made it strictly controlled "systems" to prevent people from defeating the content by zerging, because developers dared to enforce players to play the game the way developers want it, no error margin, no freedom, no human factor. There is no more thrill of facing consequences and having to make choices. Everything was eliminated from the players free will.
MMORPG no longer satisfy Explorers, Socializers or Killers
Even Achievers, got their fun limited, by casual design decisions, balance, level caps and notion of end game, where one should stop progressing, HERESY, there is no such thing as finite progression on MMORPGs. The world doesnt wait for the offliners, the world doesnt stop, people who keep playing keep progressing, unacepptable to have design decisions to bypass this core characteristics of MMORPGs, for the sake of "balance".
In F2P games, with are often more shallow than their p2p counterparts, achievers can SIMPLY PAY TO WIN! They can buy power with real money, they can buy time, they can shortcut their way to achieving things, DEFEATING THE PURPOSE OF EVERYONE ELSE. Whats the point on competing, when others are cheating their way with real money?
And in P2P games, they have made it so people cant achieve power over others, because the existance of level caps and the short time required to reach them have been constantly reduced... there was a time when years were necessary to master everything, now, people cant master everything, just some areas, and it takes just a few days, or weeks at most. We are talking about Massivelly multiplayer online role playing games, virtual worlds here, people are not supposed to beat the game or reach an end or a limit, not in any casual time frame.
MMORPGs have lost its essence to the point where even Bartle's test lost its purpose. MMORPGs dont satisfy neither Exploreres, Socializers, Killers or Achievers anymore.
![http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/13.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]](http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/13.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]){kind=link}
Comments
Im having a blast playing lotro, so there.
EQ2 does this quite well for me and my wife.
Playing: Nothing
Retired:Too many to list.
Interesting point and I mostly agree with you. Basically all recently (last 3-4 years) released MMORPGs no longer has any exploration content and quite reduced content when it comes to socializing (everything is instanced and queued up for).
Also achievement has lost its meaning because if there are literally houndreds with high end gear and at max level when really, where is the achievement in gaining that?
More over, killing has been reduced to instanced battlegrounds/scenarios with little purpose or meaning.
MMORPGs are slowly morphing into linear, scripted, and single player based experiences. Sad really, when you think what it could have been. A virtual world where you lived your character, rather than raced him through a linear path.
The very few MMORPGs that still exist and follow the original formula are either too old, Asherons Call, too much of a chore, Eve, or amaterustically done, Mortal Online and Darkfall.
Waiting for the next MMORPG, true to its origins but I dont see anything coming the next year, or even after that.
My gaming blog
Im having a blast playing Alien Vs Predator on my PS3, whats your point?
My gaming blog
Im having a blast playing Alien Vs Predator on my PS3, whats your point?
My point is that all of this is opinion. MMOs are fine. You said it yourself. Just because you cant be arsed to learn how to play EVE or dont like MO doesnt mean the genre is dying.
To the guy who mentioned Everquest series. Its design roots date the origins of the genre, so when I say todays MMORPGs, it obviously dont apply.
Yeah I do tend to agree with most of yer points, stuff has really been dulled down recentrly. Especially in the exploration department. Last I recall having a blast simply exploring was pre-NGE SWG, and I've pretty much had a go at everything released since then, thats saying alot.
nowadays mmo's aspire too much to be movies tbh...
- Shijeer
Im having a blast playing Alien Vs Predator on my PS3, whats your point?
My point is that all of this is opinion. MMOs are fine. You said it yourself. Just because you cant be arsed to learn how to play EVE or dont like MO doesnt mean the genre is dying.
Having a whopping two options among a thousand shitty MMOs isn't exactly an encouraging figure, especially if you can't stand either option.
Bans a perma, but so are sigs in necro posts.
EAT ME MMORPG.com!
Having a whopping two options among a thousand shitty MMOs isn't exactly an encouraging figure, especially if you can't stand either option.
Two out of A THOUSAND? One thousand? You mean there are 1000 mmos out at the moment? EVE, Darkfall and MO out of the top of my head. Thats three "traditional" mmos, at least in design. Now, themeparks. Lets name those 1000 of them then. There are 399 on this website. They count UOs and EQs as well.
To tell all of you the truth, I get what you're saying, I really do. I just have a hard time accepting 'the sky is falling' theories. But, by all means, make noise. Its the only way I can think of that developers will actually start making more of these things.
Im having a blast playing Alien Vs Predator on my PS3, whats your point?
My point is that all of this is opinion. MMOs are fine. You said it yourself. Just because you cant be arsed to learn how to play EVE or dont like MO doesnt mean the genre is dying.
I wasnt saying it was dying, but rather changing completely to something unrecognisable.
MMORPGs are no longer massively multiplayer virtual worlds but rather massiveley multiplayer solo games following a linear path.
My gaming blog
We are all explorers, achievers, socializers, and killers in different degrees.
Exploration is to satisfy personal intrinsic desire.
Achievement is to satisfy personal extrinsic desire.
Socialization is to satisfy interpersonal intrinsic desire.
Killing is to satisfy interpersonal extrinsic desire.
Explorers and achievers are typically introverts (motivated by themselves, for themselves), socializers and killers are typically extroverts (motivated by others for others).
Killers start wars and fight with other people over control of a resource or information (our military leaders, AKA: GMs or untouchable quest NPCs that tell you what quests to do).
Socializers dominate the brain market and try to control other people not swayed by their opinions (our political leaders, AKA: the game developers).
Explorers try to find new ways to circumvent common problems in order to make life easier (scientists, AKA: now-branded hackers).
Achievers follow what they are told and try their best to accomplish what they've set out to do within the established limitations (the common audience for all the world's stage, the worker, AKA: the adventurer).
Our games are starting to reflect our current societal structures: you've got the killers and socializers upholding their place as an elite few, and the explorers and achievers as the common audience. Achievers more than explorers.
It truly is no coincidence that our games mimic the structure of our reality.
The elite killers and socialites are established as superior and by default wish to maintain a monopoly over what they've accomplished for the good of all - the necessity to keep what has been done in order to maintain continued productivity. They work to ensure person / product / information survival via protection and destruction on the physical and mental battlefields. They work to protect what is, in their minds, the greater good.
The explorers are the scrutinizing mental senses of the elite; they gather information objectively and attempt to discover new solutions to old problems. They pick an interest and explore it, but are rarely interested in communication between those outside their circle. They choose to explore for the good of themselves.
The achievers are the bodies of the elite; they work to maintain the society's survival. They bear the daily grind, whether by choice or not, for the good of themselves. Achievers sometimes become explorers when they shed their egos.
In MMORPGs, the elite are the one-world government composed of the developers. There is no need for elite killers, because the world is united under one body - however, one might consider those with the power to disable accounts as "killers."
For the explorers, there is nothing left to explore besides the established boundaries, and so they become harmful to the established government as they seek new ways to streamline the daily grind and break those boundaries.
For the achievers, all there is... is to follow orders. Should an achiever want to explore, they will have to search for other venues.
Should you wonder why newer games are not built for killers or socializers, it's because the developers and their staff have already filled those positions and have little focus on themselves (much the same as our political and military leaders). They cannot design a game for what they do not observe.
Achievers are the quickest to please, the easiest to control, and the most predictable: they chase delicious carrots and fear sharp sticks. Naturally, they're going to be the most prominent choice for a one-world government that seeks to establish an unchanging dogma.
That is to say, they're the best choice for a team of developers who want money.
I like to think I have a fertile enough imagination in order to imagine myself in a vibrant world, I dont need the game to do everything for me. My game worlds are as wide, open and active as I want them to be. And they always are.
My opinion is that mmos today are better than ever, and I hope you find a "home" soon
Good points, OP. I find myself agreeing to all you say, by and large. It seems indeed that MMOs these days are more narrowing down to Achievers types.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Not just MMO's. Console and single player PC games are too. Its just the direction that developers are going to keep people playing and buying. The majority of gamers love their achievements, trophies, stars, whatever; and love collecting them. If "we" as a demographic didn't enjoy it so much, devs would give a rats ass about it either.
Its like vampire blood getting thinner/weaker with each new generation of vampires.
Plasuma,
care to direct your effort towards factual design decisions that got systematically changed in these years resulting in
MMORPGs not satisfying Explorers, Socializers, Killers and Achievers?
In short, what I want is examples like this:
Socializer -> the implementation of features such as auction houses, even on medieval fantasy settings, ended up having a negative effect on the socializer experience, the type of gamer that created his own net of suppliers and buyers through his time and effort using his own social skill interacting with other players. Another negative side effect is the removal/absence of in game physical areas where people gathered around to show their goods and trade. Such areas used to be developed naturally giving an organic dinamic feel to the game economy and social structure. Players became know, the creation of bounds, the friendships and trust relations... This all got wiped out as a side effect of auction houses.
Not saying auction houses didnt had positive effects, off course. We could start discussing in-depth the negative and positive effects of auction houses. The point I made, is that the creation and dissemination of such feature, now considered standard by the majority, brought a very harsh effect to the archetype of player known as socializer.
I wish I could elaborate a list of many examples, but such endeavour is better suited for the community brainstorming on this thread.
WoW pretty much has done a good job in failing all of those categories:
Achievers - Have everything in WoW, content is dumbed down so much. Game used to have MC40,AQ40,Naxx40, BWL40. Players couldn't handle it. Now everyone gets welfare epics. What do you achieve, even if you were #1 in WoW? Nothing. You'll have the same gear as anyone else, have done the same things, etc. Game has been too dumbed down. World firsts don't mean anything anymore in MMORPGs, because the content is that easy.
Explorers - Good luck exploring, when things show up on your map showing you where to go. And where you actually start out with a map of every zone and magically your character remembers everything. What happened to making players remember where things are? WoW players not smart enough to have long-term memory? Characters should not have copies of maps when they start a game out. And quest NPCs shouldnt tell them where to go. And zones shouldn't be so linear. How many zones in WoW actually have more than 1 path from A to B? Almost None..
Naxx40 - 4 Wings, only 1 path through each wing though. All zones are like that too. There is no chance of going the wrong way. So you'll always explore in the right direction, because there's only one. So there is no exploration in WoW.
Socializers - Good luck socializing in WoW. Most people solo in trivial games like WoW. Just solo 1-80, do a 10 minute instance every so often with 4 other people you don't know or care to know, because you're just there for 10 minutes, and you don't need them after that. You don't socialize or get to know people in WoW. It's all instanced, how could you get to know anyone in WoW? You could level from 1-80 in WoW and you wouldn't know even 1 person that well.
Killers - Yeah, 2v2 arenas are really competitive. Did I pick the right class, the right build? Am I partnered with the right class? That is the depth to WoWS PvP system. Instead of farming scripted NPCs, they are farming scripted instances vs the same players over and over. It's just a player farm instead of NPCs, no different. And the limited PvP battles means you'll rapidly learn how to deal with the class combos that you have to fight against.
So basically WoW is a complete failure of an MMORPG. Not even 1 category is satisfied. Why do people play it? They never played anything better, WoW is their first MMORPG. It's hard to realize garbage if that's all you've played. And with all the useless welfare epics these lousy players have, they'll cling to their worthless character and boring game for some reason. Really guys, I had a character more geared out than anyone in WoW when I quit the game. I mean, isn't watching a wall a little better than playing such a lousy MMORPG? You'll only perpetuate bad MMORPGs if you continue to play bad MMORPGs.
WoW more like Instances of Warcraft, not even an MMORPG.
I'll agree with the OP for the most part. The big-name AAA titles are certainly dumbed-down from the first generation games and this effects players of every type. On the other hand it makes mmorpgs accessible to more paying customers so I understand why the developers do it.
If you are willing to play the niche games made by small studios you can still get some of that old goodness. But you have to live without the polish and perfection of the AAA titles. Fallen Earth offers a single-server world with very little instancing which aids socialization. The zones have no boundaries and are wide open for exploration. I'm sure others could describe games like DF or MO to highlight what they bring back to the genre. Someone has already mentioned EVE.
It all comes down to what you are willing to sacrafice to get the features you most desire. No game can be everything for every player.
There's really no point in elaborating unless explanations are needed for further understanding.
For the most part, you can derive from my post a basic working understanding of the concepts and how they can be applied to commonplace development methods and solutions, but it requires an objective point of view that is quite impossible to grant to a reader. If you can't understand my posts, I apologize as they are just as fresh as my journal and only make sense as much as it would to an outsider reading the last entry.
On the example of a fully-automated auction house: it was designed to make selling goods faster and easier, which has a heavy focus on streamlining achievement play. The same goes for NPC vendors that buy loot. On the down side, those systems remove a socially explorable element.
But before I continue, I would say that calling the suit of clubs (or the interpersonal extrinsically motivated individuals) "killers" is a bit too specific a term. I would re-define the term as "dominators."
I would also point out an inconsistency in my previous post, that being my definition of socializers. They do not dominate, rather, they have the goal of socializing as an intrinsic desire - meaning they do not impress upon others in order to feel justified, they simply like to share ideas and discover the traits of other people.
So, I have this list of working definitions:
Achiever - The Worker. Those who strive to complete the goals set before them for the hopes of gaining a carrot or for the fear of a sharp stick.
Explorer - The Scientist. Those who strive to discover the elements of new and old concepts for no reason other than their own desire. They do not fear sticks, and they do not chase carrots.
Dominator - The Zealot. Those who strive to make their place in the world through force. They are natural leaders driven by a greed or fear of carrots and sticks greater than themselves.
Socializer - The Socialite. Those who strive to discover the elements of other people for no reason other than their own desire. They do not fear sticks or chase carrots by themselves, but may be influenced to do so if others are doing it as well.
To reiterate:
Achievers and dominators chase carrots.
If there is an established goal with a clear set of instructions, an achiever will be happy to do it if it does not involve dealing with other people. Once the instructions become vague, the achiever becomes lost.
If there is an established goal with no clear set of instructions, a dominator would be happy to make the instructions clear by attacking the problem to resolve it.
These types of people refer to established solutions to complete their goals, and they require goals to be set before them.
Explorers and socializers do not chase carrots.
If there is an established goal with a clear set of instructions, an explorer will scrutinize the instructions and goals to form their own - if there is no clear set of instructions (or even an established goal), an explorer would be happy to search for an answer so long as it does not involve other people and has not yet been solved.
If there is an established goal with no clear set of instructions, a socializer will be happy to explore the possibilities of other people and search for a diplomatic solution so long as it has not yet been solved.
These types of people are interested in finding new solutions to complete goals, and they can create their own goals without the need of instruction.
Back to the requested topic: I would go on to describe more systems, their implementations and consequences, but it would be a waste of time - whomever would be reading my descriptions, if they cannot understand the universal rules, wouldn't think to do anything with the information anyways. It would do more harm than good to establish a dogma such as "open world PvP is bad because..."
If you want a game that effectively targets all audiences in the current generation, you will be disappointed as they are all geared towards those who chase carrots. However, it is possible to create a game with maximum general appeal.
First, look at the composition of mainstream development teams: they include achievers, explorers, dominators, and socializers. The developers only create products for achievers because they are the easiest to please and the quickest, most assured source of monetary gain.
But what if a game was designed to put people into the shoes of the game developers? What if there was mass amateurization in game development? Surely, that would have a greater overall appeal, as YouTube has clearly shown.
Game development is exclusive. Software development kits are expensive.
In the world of motion pictures, we have Youtube. It is a free service and cameras are inexpensive.
Effectively, this tells us: "Remove money from the picture and you get more creative freedom." If you cannot remove money from the picture, you should design something that minimizes costs and grants the freedom to others.
Why should we concern ourselves with details in mechanics and techniques for developing games that appeal to such specific audiences? It's a waste of time, effort, and money. Instead, we could be making this a massively amateurized market by creating tools that allow others without the power to create games... to create games. I say we let them (the amateur game developers) deal with the specifics, because the specifics tend to cause an expensive and inevitable feature creep to a product's death.
In this way, mass amateurization is a good thing.
The professional market is already dried up and dying because of a creative stigma caused by capitalistic dogma. It's time to open the floodgates and let everyone else have a go at it - the only way that can happen is with technologies such as those found within spore, second life, and metaplace applied in a more intuitive and powerful platform.
So we make tools. Not games.
Let everyone else make the games with the freedoms and opportunities we grant them.
See how many parallels to our governments you can get from exploring game development? Fun.
Fair point. But, you'd have to admit that LOTRO does mostly cater to the achiever type, more so than when the game launched. Well, I guess it would be more accurate to say that LOTRO caters to the casual players first...then the achievers. Still, it's the same with most of the major MMOs now. They have quest content for the ultra casual players, then raiding and gear grinding for the achievers. Explorers, socializers, and killers have been moved to the back burner.
I actually just jumped back into LOTRO and have been pretty entertained by just mob hunting and selling mats on the AH. But I wouldn't say the game caters to that play style.
I think the OP is completely on the mark, and am not surprised at the flood of counter-responses of the usual contrarian nature that pollute this board.
Agree with the OP, that's why I play DFO. Plenty of killing going on, you're forced to join clans and group together for self preservation so that's the socializing covered, The world is seamless, massive and open with lots to explore as for Acieving there's not quite the standard post WoW badge of honour system but more of a mutual respect and recognition between players for what you've done.
Most MMORPGs do suck now and are more like single player junk with a chat box so that you may compete in competitions of vulgarity and ignorance with persons who have a mental age of a retarded 10 year old with terrets whilst being spammed with pms from 20 Chinese gold sellers trying to type in broken English.
Yeah I'm ranting ... bite me!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Greetings. [Plasuma, apologies for a late reply to a stagnated thread. The pace of holiday activities has kept me from posting while my thoughts were still fresh!]
I can't say I subscribe entirely to the Bartle Test, but understand and endorse its merits and the forced thinking it incurs on the reader. I do agree with how roles work inside of not only a social structure but internally as well.
The key concept here, is whether or not you agree to the Bartle Test's dichtonomy- that is to say each of the 4 categories are all completely unique, and that their sum covers the full spectrum of gamers. I don't necessarily agree with the nomenclature, or the tagging, that was used for each of the quandrants, but for argument's sake (ie: I don't believe achievers are necessarily externally motivated, as people are capable of forming and chasing their own goals or string of goals), I can agree with the 2 by 2 matrix and its breakdown.
Reading about the test immediately reminded me of D&D. Depending on your resource material, you could extract similar findings using differring models.
In DD, DMs are taught there there exist 8 types of gamers:
- Actor: likes to pretend to be their character. Emphasizes personality, sociality.
- Explorer: likes to see new places and meet people, experience cultures. Curiosity driven, experiences.
- Instigator: likes to make things happen. Emphasizes spontaneity, risk-taker.
- Power gamer: thrives on progression through linear mechanics such as leveling. Goal oriented, optimizer.
- Slayer: enjoys kicking tail and taking names. Loves action, combatant.
- Storyteller: highly interested in the storylines and tales of the world- the 'why's behind it all. Engaging through narratives, backgrounds.
- Thinker: lives through making choices, weighing challenges and making efficient plans. Loves a good success from a great efficient:effective ratio, puzzles.
- Watcher: plays because their buddies do, just to be a part of the social event. Is an extra 'warm body' for the group. Gamer most detatched from the game, casual.
I think we're everything. The thing about roles is that we have a bit of each in all of us, regardless of how much of a 'slayer' one might be, we are equally driven to be a 'storyteller' and know why we're slaying- it makes it more enjoyable knowing I'm killing to revenge a clan, or equally to just be a bad guy (motive deltas). Regardless of how much of a 'watcher' one might be, we are equally a 'power gamer' who needs to be involved for oneself. We also operate in phases. One day you might be interested in thinking through things, another day you might be tired from work and wish to just participate in the story of the universe.
It's a concept of 'complete' that the western world doesn't quite grasp to the same degree that much of the eastern world does: social structures being a binary source code. 'I' isn't a word that starts most sentences, but rather a 'we'. Likewise, rather than try to figure out which 'role I am', we should be trying to discover the balance of them that completes our 'individual'. I do fully believe, however, in the need to break things down into their smallest components first, before rebuilding, as fullness of understanding is achieved through first understanding all mechanics at play, then understanding their interworkings.
I had touched on server out-sourcing in a seperate thread, and how 'mass amateurization' can be achieved in some degree via this mean. Something to consider, as you drew up a parallel with movies:
- Game engines are becoming more and more accessible to the indie gamer. Ogre, Torque, Abyssal, Hero, Unreal.... there are varying degrees of polish on engines that are legitimately good without carrying price tags of proprietary (some listed are).
- You're only as good as the audience you reach or inspire. In an MMO, and where games differ from movies as a source of entertainment, is that it requires active involvement. There is a 'closed loop' of experience:feedback.
I think the issue lies more with, and I hate to beat a dead horse: too many chiefs, too few indians. We don't need more sectors of play, more niches to be carved out: we need what we *do* have to be done *right* (how many MMOs saturate the market? THOUSANDS.) How do we educate the chiefs who make the games? Make them ourselves? Therein draws a whole 'nother beast of tangents.
We need games that are built for each 'style' of 'gamer'. We then need each 'style' to have a influence/be influenced link with each of the other quadrants. That is what is missing from our market today.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Im not going to agree nor disagree with the OP in his post.
I'll just comment about the "old school rpgers" who love to spam every single day. "new MMOs suck, we need a X game with Y Z and K features, and P on top"
(bonus points if u use the word: sandbox)
when they are pointed to the couple niche games released every here and there or the old "state of art" games they start crying about its age, graphics, content or moribund community.
ladies and gentlemen, get into your thick skulls that if the MMORPG industry grew from a couple dozen thousand players to more than 25m, it was simply because they "betrayed" all things you love. Because what you like is the very epitome of "niche"
apparently you expect to see a 100 million dollar budget game made for at most 25,000 players.
no folks, you are not gonna get a game like the ones you crave and see 4 million players screaming "awesome, i LOVE this". Stick to the games that already exist, or wait for other low budget releases.
But all you do is crying in this forum, day after day, week after week, ad nauseam.
hilarious
go buy a forest, get lost and rp your way out
Not sure this post follows the thread's orientation.. Furthermore, your cause and effect examples could very well be applied with opposites and be found true as well: ie. 'if the MMO industry grew, it's because they did things right'. Expansion can be found through evolution or regression, equally.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Not a problem, the holidays tend to consume a lot of my time as well.
It's a good kind of time consumption, though.
On the bit about the 8 types of gamers, I can mostly agree with it. However, it does not go against what the Bartle system implies. If gamers, based on what you say about them, were to be filtered by their play styles in various degrees, you could make a nice little diagram out of it to find where a person best fits.
Something like this:
Yay for a 2-minute Photoshop job.
The top, bottom, left and right are the general domains; the dark corners are the Bartle classifications; and the corners of the octagon are the DD classifications. My justification for putting them where they are is as follows:
Intrinsic is the opposite of Extrinsic.
Personal is the opposite of Interpersonal.
Exploration and Domination are opposites.
Social and Achievement are opposites.
You could easily argue the placement of the more specific personality types on the chart, but it makes the most sense to me in this order.
The instigator and watcher are opposites.
The explorer and slayer are opposites.
The power gamer and storyteller are opposites.
The thinker and actor are opposites.
You could further quantize them into 16, 32, 64, etc. personality types to show more of a gradient. I'm personally not a fan of designing games to fit people of a specific audience, because to say that "the only way to make a successful game would be to cater to a specific audience" would also imply that a government could not appease and provide for the entire spectrum.
Now, those dichotomies I outlined.... they aren't to suggest you can't have a split, because opposites can also be complementary. There's a reason I made the graph the way I did, with that purple field in the middle there. Funny, I still don't know what these graphs are called yet I use them all the time to plot vague data.
Let's say that I am a "stereotypical" bull fighter - I instigate the fights, and while the ultimate goal is to slay my opponent, I first want to dance with them and put on a spectacle for my audience before I do. I started my career in bull fighting because my friends were doing it, but I find a lot of thrill in fighting against such a powerful opponent.
My graph might look like this:
Of course, if I had different reasons for doing this, the data would change on the graph even while the activity is the same. Although the chart probably shouldn't show such an extreme towards "watcher"... should be more half-way.
While I agree that we are everything of some degree, I can be absolutely certain that nobody is every extreme at one time. People do change their outlooks and personalities as the environment challenges their methods; but more often than not, they are either: centered in the middle after achieving a kind of mental homeostasis, or they have an extreme of at least one specific type and no concentration in another or others.
In uncommon cases, people fluctuate personalities often enough to be considered bipolar. This is when their environment has destroyed their mental stability, and they become very sensitive. Any minor detail that seems mundane to someone else may be an insurmountable obstacle to them. But this isn't what the discussion is about. Curse my random tangents.
I drew a parallel to movies because it's a common thing to do. Games and movies are considered visual / audio entertainment and some games are even designed more like movies (I've recently played through Metal Gear Solid 4 and I can whole-heartedly agree, it's more like a movie than anything else - but it's a good movie). In many ways, video games are just movies with added gimmicks to make you more interested. Stories with buttons to push.
That's all fine and good, but there's more we can do with games besides cinematic presentation and immersion. Game development is a game itself in many ways, but it's a game that is far too expensive and time consuming for amateurs to get into, and one far too polluted by old ideas that it has begun to stagnate.
I believe that everyone is a consumer and creator in their own capacities. Or in the terms you've expressed: everyone is a chief and an indian.
It's really not that chiefs need to be more educated, or that indians need to be given the power to become chiefs - it's the barrier that separates the two that is the problem.
We quantize too much of our lives for our own good, and I'm guilty of it on more than a few counts, especially in this post with that graph and plot. We always try to make an "us" and a "them" out of every situation, and we fail to realize that better things could be accomplished without such needless titles to divide us.
My concept isn't so much in making chiefs out of indians or making chiefs into indians, it's bringing the two parties (the professional and the amateur) together to create something far greater than either of them could dream possible while in their previous state of separation. It's the ideal of open source development. People just do what they do for enjoyment. If they want to consume, they can. If they want to create, they can.
It's the model of Linux and Wikipedia - it targets everyone, and it works.