Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Dungeon finder poll

15678911»

Comments

  • blognorgblognorg Member UncommonPosts: 643
    Originally posted by vesuvias

    This arguement is like argueing agiast using modern relationship finding tools in a modern society. No match.com, no eharmony.. grumble grumble... people can only form lasting relationships the old fashioned way. You can't build meaningful relationships unless you hit the bars, church or grocery store isles. It's like you found the love of your life in the frozen food section of your grocery store and can't imagine a real relationship building in any other way. If people keep forming relationships with eharmony and match, who will go to bars, who will attend church. The sky will fall, magnetic pools will shift, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!!!?!?!

     

    Now I get your secondary argument which is really about dependancy. It's this idea that the game should foster a "need" for other individuals to complete content. And by making it too easy to form groups and get to content you harm this concept of interdependancy. If there is too large a pool of players willing to join my group then I don't "need" to foster a relationship with you. I don't need your help with anything since I can get anyone else at anytime to fill whatever I needed you for. Getting rid of this doesn't get rid of real relationships just the artifical illusionary ones. What you might be missing is that this false sense of interdependancy fostered by these "golden age" games was built on a foundation of artifical incentive in the first place. They were never real. The real relationships you may have formed came out of real interaction between you and another person and that certianly didn't happen during the LFG conversation.

     

    Man, I feel like I am talking to my kids about why love at first sight doesn't truely exist... :)

    Heh. Well, I did say that it has to do with what game it's implemented in. As far as the social aspect, I'm mainly speaking from personal experience, and I've heard many other preach the same thing. It's a preference that people have established from experience, and I don't think it should be written off so quickly. After all, games are about a player's enjoyment, and removing that enjoyment isn't trivial.

     

    I never said that a real relationship was established immediatly during the forced conversation; I said that it acted as an ice breaker and a first impressions. Ask any sociologist, first impressions are paramount in forming a relarionship; this applies to virtual interaction as well. In the LFG situation, there often is no social jumping off point.

     

    I never said anything about the "golden age", because I never played any of the games which were considered part of that. I started playing RO shortly before WoW was launched, so in the grand scheme of things I started about the same time as the "new" generation. UO, DAoC, SWG, and EQ were all before my time. I'm not an advocate of regression like many people on here. That mindset includes not shoving in old concepts from other games into new ones... that applies to LFG. LFGs were just a fix, so devs should be thinking how to create better socialization instead of just copying the same problems and fixes.

     

    Anyway, my main point wasn't to argue whether or not LFGs are good or bad. My point was that they shouldn't be shoehorned into a game that wasn't made for them. Like any design choice, it should fit in with the game model. Like I said, some games would mesh with it better, and I don't actually think it would contradict what Arenanet has created too much.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.