There are dazzling layers of complexity that can occur not just from game systems but player organization in OWPvP with consequence. Calling it "mindless 8-bit arcade violence" is as much of an oversimplification as @Torval suggests proponents of OWPvP oversimplify 'systems with guard rails'.
What, I oversimplify the experience of bloodbath PVP on respawn timers? Is that even possible?
Spring back up, dive back in, kill kill kill kill, camp the graveyards! Hurry up guys, we need more zerg.
Games can (and should) do better. Particularly sandbox games. Relying on the players to provide consequence is the excuse of lazy programmers and teen angst e-thug anarchists.
Consequences and outcomes are different words to describe the same thing. Consequences are not bad they can be very good. They are the result of something. Outcomes are the result of something.
They are literally the same thing.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You can get as semantic about the definitions of words as you want.
Their point is that there's a difference between the trivial consequences being mentioned and the scale of consequences or reactions to a given player decision which they would like to see more of.
In other words, consequences without weight are inconsequential.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Might make right is a proven failed PVP method for most players. Just who the audience is and the lost time almost always falls on victims. That's why accountability has to involve taking as much time from aggressor when he is stopped. Being kiled or outlawed can be gotten around because we don't live in the game.
There are dazzling layers of complexity that can occur not just from game systems but player organization in OWPvP with consequence. Calling it "mindless 8-bit arcade violence" is as much of an oversimplification as @Torval suggests proponents of OWPvP oversimplify 'systems with guard rails'.
What, I oversimplify the experience of bloodbath PVP on respawn timers? Is that even possible?
Spring back up, dive back in, kill kill kill kill, camp the graveyards! Hurry up guys, we need more zerg.
Games can (and should) do better. Particularly sandbox games. Relying on the players to provide consequence is the excuse of lazy programmers and teen angst e-thug anarchists.
Let me ask you this by way of analogy, as I think we may be talking about two separate things:
Is Eve Online a OWPvP game?
Some people seem to assume "consequence" means 'going to jail', when from a game design perspective it's far more interesting to balance PvP with economic and social consequences.
I.e. 'you killed that guy we liked when we were watching, now we won't let you buy any of our stuff or even come inside our territory without us trying to kill you, unless you are able to pay us some obscenely high amount or else undertake some Sisyphian-ly difficult task to make reparations.'
Consequence doesn't have to mean locking anybody out of gameplay. There are far more elegant solutions.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Consequences and outcomes are different words to describe the same thing. Consequences are not bad they can be very good. They are the result of something. Outcomes are the result of something.
They are literally the same thing.
they may mean the same thing but i never heard a sentence describing a positive from a Consequences...
i hate story quest...most mmorpg tutorial quest is bad...even gw2 story is bad. i prefer to create my own story while playing game...if i want story driven, i better watch a good movie....
your list is wrong. Well wrong for everyone. Consequence almost always carries a suggestion of something potentially or actually negative. The last two on your list might be personal negatives but not universal negatives. What you have listed are actually outcomes. Which is just a factual result from an action carrying no negative or positive.
Why is everyone struggling so hard to claim up is down? This isn't rocket surgery, guys.
your list is wrong. Well wrong for everyone. Consequence almost always carries a suggestion of something potentially or actually negative. The last two on your list might be personal negatives but not universal negatives. What you have listed are actually outcomes. Which is just a factual result from an action carrying no negative or positive.
Why is everyone struggling so hard to claim up is down? This isn't rocket surgery, guys.
That meaning is, "the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier."
You admit my list is outcomes, and outcomes are consequences.
Whether the outcome is negative is irrelevant. Outcomes are outcomes. Consequences are consequence.
The problem everyone has is that the "consequences" you're giving as an example are ones with negligible weight beyond that of a slight shift in pacing or progression.
What people want when talking about creating a game with consequences, is systems that have consequences with distinct effects and weight to them.
It's the difference between what you said and a mechanic like jail time in Archeage.
As said prior; "consequences without weight are inconsequential."
Your argument is that there are already consequences in these games. The counterpoint is that those elements are at best trivial nuisances that fail to tie into any strong choices or reactions. You getting all nit-picky about a definition does not change that.
A consequence of ill consequence is of no consequential value to being talked about as a consequence.
Consequences and outcomes are different words to describe the same thing. Consequences are not bad they can be very good. They are the result of something. Outcomes are the result of something.
They are literally the same thing.
they may mean the same thing but i never heard a sentence describing a positive from a Consequences...
I have, many times actually.
Beyond that I do agree with Deivos. If the consequences are inconsequential (that sounds odd but you know what I mean) then they may as well not exist, they don't have an effect.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The entire point was that there is no other consequence possible before there is only a single option. So by your rules, it's only the portion size (or none at all) being the only decision possible. There are no other options. You're told that your entire existence will consist of this singular meal plan, but you believe you actually have consequences to your decisions when there are barely even any decisions that you can even make in the first place.
How is anyone supposed to feel any real consequences when most of these games already make majority of the decisions you're going to 'choose' for you.
But you're so caught up in preaching your asinine 'point' to understand what anyone is even attempting to convey.
You're wrong.
In scenario A ice cream is "the only option", but that means you actually have a choice TO or NOT TO eat ice cream. That's a decision.
In scenario B you are forced to eat ice cream (there literally is only one option: you WILL eat the ice cream because you're being forced.) In this scenario there isn't a decision so there isn't consequence.
Neither scenario conflicts with what I've said before. (If you've been referring to scenario B the whole time then obviously your analogy has nothing to do with the examples I provided before -- it's just a straw man of your own invention.)
Conversely, the examples I provided are the tip of the iceberg of decisions which actually do exist in MMORPGs. Tossing around hyperbolic language that games "already make the majority of decisions" for you is just hyperbolic nonsense not useful to our discussion. (Why discuss hyperbolic fantasy when we could discuss truth instead?)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The entire point was that there is no other consequence possible before there is only a single option. So by your rules, it's only the portion size (or none at all) being the only decision possible. There are no other options. You're told that your entire existence will consist of this singular meal plan, but you believe you actually have consequences to your decisions when there are barely even any decisions that you can even make in the first place.
How is anyone supposed to feel any real consequences when most of these games already make majority of the decisions you're going to 'choose' for you.
But you're so caught up in preaching your asinine 'point' to understand what anyone is even attempting to convey.
You're wrong.
Everything you just said is a semantic tangent about lame decisions still being decisions.
Even the person you quoted has clearly made the point that the argument is about making decisions that MATTER, not decisions/consequences that are banal.
Don't say "you're wrong" when thus-far you have yet to be right about anything of consequence.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The entire point was that there is no other consequence possible before there is only a single option. So by your rules, it's only the portion size (or none at all) being the only decision possible. There are no other options. You're told that your entire existence will consist of this singular meal plan, but you believe you actually have consequences to your decisions when there are barely even any decisions that you can even make in the first place.
How is anyone supposed to feel any real consequences when most of these games already make majority of the decisions you're going to 'choose' for you.
But you're so caught up in preaching your asinine 'point' to understand what anyone is even attempting to convey.
You're wrong.
Everything you just said is a semantic tangent about lame decisions still being decisions.
Even the person you quoted has clearly made the point that the argument is about making decisions that MATTER, not decisions/consequences that are banal.
Don't say "you're wrong" when thus-far you have yet to be right about anything of consequence.
Don't really care too much if he has me blocked. If he doesn't want to learn that's not my problem, I'm still going to correct things when they are wrong so other people can have clarity.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So funny enough (I know you guys are talking about something else but heh)...after I made this thread, Ryzom was released on Steam.
Downloaded it today, and wow...so many people. Its really active. That was my biggest complaint of Ryzom when I tried it about 6 or so months ago. There was literally no one on the island except me and one other person, and chat was dead. And the mainland was even emptier. Hopefully the steam release massively boosts its popularity, and maybe they'll be able to do more updates and stuff.
Also trying out Project Gorgon, and that is pretty fun. Ryzom has the unique AI that interacts with you, migrates, and has seasons and all kinds of stuff. Gorgon is awesome too though, a lot of items to find and the quests are very unique, and its actually pretty challenging.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Everything you just said is a semantic tangent about lame decisions still being decisions.
Even the person you quoted has clearly made the point that the argument is about making decisions that MATTER, not decisions/consequences that are banal.
Don't say "you're wrong" when thus-far you have yet to be right about anything of consequence.
I think he has you blocked.
Of course I have him blocked.
Why would I want to listen to someone who's constantly wrong? He struggles really hard to disagree with me in every post I bother unblocking, and what he's trying to disagree with is objective truth. (The example in this thread being: consequences are consequences are consequences.)
Anyone who claims that games lack consequences is just objectively wrong. You can claim the consequences aren't important enough to you (which is subjective,) but there objectively, indisputably are consequences involved in any situation where decisions happen.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Anyone who claims that games lack consequences is just objectively wrong.
The example in this thread is "not all consequences are created equal".
Anyone claiming "games lack consequences" are generally making the statement that the choices in the game bear little to no weight. You can get as semantic as you want about how looting a corpse has consequences, but that utterly fails to address the point as they have presented it. You choose time and again to create false arguments about semantic quibbles like this.
If we want to talk about objective reality then we can reiterate the point that a game sold on the notion of consequences generally means that actions have heavy reactions. The example previously being from PvP where you get flagged by guards as a player killer or from Archeage with the jail time mechanic. There is a vast difference on an objective and mechanical level and how it influences theuser experience between a minor inconvenience like leveling a little slower and being isolated after committing a minor terrorist attack on the game world.
And what is the response he gives? Well for one he doesn't even address the content of the posts when he does try to respond, Instead the only given offer is like the one above where he makes up a straw-man argument and ignores the very clear points made since before I even joined the conversation such as this;
"When's the last time your fighter returned to town only to be greeted by an entire armed militia backing a sheriff and his men? Arrested, throw into a dank jail cell to rot?
When's the last time you got old, slowed down, were unable to continue because of accumulating injuries and scars?
When's the last time your "army" had you tossed in the brig for deserting your post and sneaking across the lines without orders (again)? Conducting your own vigilante war? Murdering some innocent civilians? No military justice in your "army"? No discipline whatsoever?"
And this; "So do you really not know that when he says "consequences" he's talking about game penalties for over-doing ganking to try to tone down its frequency or are you just pretending you don't understand?"
And this; "There is a huge difference between experiencing consequences for throwing sand in another kid's eyes and a magical invisible barrier that prevents you from throwing sand in the first place."
And the list goes on...
Calling people wrong because they logically dismantled your conjecture is very simply the petty act of an immature person who refuses to learn. I can literally quote Axehilt saying developers don't matter to the quality of a game even (on a thread about design principles his statement was that a developers design/milestones are entirely irrelevant to making a game) ,and I am left wondering just how people agree with the nonsense he spouts.
Him extending that nonsensical tactic to an ad-hominem attack against me instead of making a rational argument on the subject should have been telling on it's own.
The only one that's been constantly "wrong" in this regard, is axe.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Comments
Spring back up, dive back in, kill kill kill kill, camp the graveyards! Hurry up guys, we need more zerg.
Games can (and should) do better. Particularly sandbox games. Relying on the players to provide consequence is the excuse of lazy programmers and teen angst e-thug anarchists.
They are literally the same thing.
Their point is that there's a difference between the trivial consequences being mentioned and the scale of consequences or reactions to a given player decision which they would like to see more of.
In other words, consequences without weight are inconsequential.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Is Eve Online a OWPvP game?
Some people seem to assume "consequence" means 'going to jail', when from a game design perspective it's far more interesting to balance PvP with economic and social consequences.
I.e. 'you killed that guy we liked when we were watching, now we won't let you buy any of our stuff or even come inside our territory without us trying to kill you, unless you are able to pay us some obscenely high amount or else undertake some Sisyphian-ly difficult task to make reparations.'
Consequence doesn't have to mean locking anybody out of gameplay. There are far more elegant solutions.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Consequence has a meaning.
That meaning is, "the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier."
You admit my list is outcomes, and outcomes are consequences.
Whether the outcome is negative is irrelevant. Outcomes are outcomes. Consequences are consequence.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What people want when talking about creating a game with consequences, is systems that have consequences with distinct effects and weight to them.
It's the difference between what you said and a mechanic like jail time in Archeage.
As said prior; "consequences without weight are inconsequential."
Your argument is that there are already consequences in these games. The counterpoint is that those elements are at best trivial nuisances that fail to tie into any strong choices or reactions. You getting all nit-picky about a definition does not change that.
A consequence of ill consequence is of no consequential value to being talked about as a consequence.
There are terms for what you are doing.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Beyond that I do agree with Deivos. If the consequences are inconsequential (that sounds odd but you know what I mean) then they may as well not exist, they don't have an effect.
In scenario A ice cream is "the only option", but that means you actually have a choice TO or NOT TO eat ice cream. That's a decision.
In scenario B you are forced to eat ice cream (there literally is only one option: you WILL eat the ice cream because you're being forced.) In this scenario there isn't a decision so there isn't consequence.
Neither scenario conflicts with what I've said before. (If you've been referring to scenario B the whole time then obviously your analogy has nothing to do with the examples I provided before -- it's just a straw man of your own invention.)
Conversely, the examples I provided are the tip of the iceberg of decisions which actually do exist in MMORPGs. Tossing around hyperbolic language that games "already make the majority of decisions" for you is just hyperbolic nonsense not useful to our discussion. (Why discuss hyperbolic fantasy when we could discuss truth instead?)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Even the person you quoted has clearly made the point that the argument is about making decisions that MATTER, not decisions/consequences that are banal.
Don't say "you're wrong" when thus-far you have yet to be right about anything of consequence.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Downloaded it today, and wow...so many people. Its really active. That was my biggest complaint of Ryzom when I tried it about 6 or so months ago. There was literally no one on the island except me and one other person, and chat was dead. And the mainland was even emptier. Hopefully the steam release massively boosts its popularity, and maybe they'll be able to do more updates and stuff.
Also trying out Project Gorgon, and that is pretty fun. Ryzom has the unique AI that interacts with you, migrates, and has seasons and all kinds of stuff. Gorgon is awesome too though, a lot of items to find and the quests are very unique, and its actually pretty challenging.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Why would I want to listen to someone who's constantly wrong? He struggles really hard to disagree with me in every post I bother unblocking, and what he's trying to disagree with is objective truth. (The example in this thread being: consequences are consequences are consequences.)
Anyone who claims that games lack consequences is just objectively wrong. You can claim the consequences aren't important enough to you (which is subjective,) but there objectively, indisputably are consequences involved in any situation where decisions happen.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Anyone claiming "games lack consequences" are generally making the statement that the choices in the game bear little to no weight. You can get as semantic as you want about how looting a corpse has consequences, but that utterly fails to address the point as they have presented it. You choose time and again to create false arguments about semantic quibbles like this.
If we want to talk about objective reality then we can reiterate the point that a game sold on the notion of consequences generally means that actions have heavy reactions. The example previously being from PvP where you get flagged by guards as a player killer or from Archeage with the jail time mechanic. There is a vast difference on an objective and mechanical level and how it influences theuser experience between a minor inconvenience like leveling a little slower and being isolated after committing a minor terrorist attack on the game world.
And what is the response he gives? Well for one he doesn't even address the content of the posts when he does try to respond, Instead the only given offer is like the one above where he makes up a straw-man argument and ignores the very clear points made since before I even joined the conversation such as this;
"When's the last time your fighter returned to town only to be greeted by an entire armed militia backing a sheriff and his men? Arrested, throw into a dank jail cell to rot?
When's the last time you got old, slowed down, were unable to continue because of accumulating injuries and scars?
When's the last time your "army" had you tossed in the brig for deserting your post and sneaking across the lines without orders (again)? Conducting your own vigilante war? Murdering some innocent civilians? No military justice in your "army"? No discipline whatsoever?"
And this;
"So do you really not know that when he says "consequences" he's talking about game penalties for over-doing ganking to try to tone down its frequency or are you just pretending you don't understand?"
And this;
"There is a huge difference between experiencing consequences for throwing sand in another kid's eyes and a magical invisible barrier that prevents you from throwing sand in the first place."
And the list goes on...
Calling people wrong because they logically dismantled your conjecture is very simply the petty act of an immature person who refuses to learn. I can literally quote Axehilt saying developers don't matter to the quality of a game even (on a thread about design principles his statement was that a developers design/milestones are entirely irrelevant to making a game) ,and I am left wondering just how people agree with the nonsense he spouts.
Him extending that nonsensical tactic to an ad-hominem attack against me instead of making a rational argument on the subject should have been telling on it's own.
The only one that's been constantly "wrong" in this regard, is axe.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin