Should games take us out of our comfort zone?
By
Ad Astra,
Posted on: 2011-03-14 05:13 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
A very interesting discussion, and I appreciate the effort you made Samuel_Tow to present both sides in an unbiased way right in the beginning.
My comfort zone is rather large, as one of the things I enjoy most is finding new ways to apply tools within the game to solve new problems. I also enjoy teamed content much more then solo content. As a result, the way I tend to evaluate new content the devs add is "will it get or keep more people playing the game". For example, I could *personally* care less about new costume bits being added, as I can rarely remember what my own costumes look like let alone those of my friends, but I am always enthusiastic about them adding more parts because I know many other players, including my friends, love them. More happy fellow players = CoH continuing to exist and me continuing to have people to play with.
So I look at the end game thats developing, and notice 2 main things. First, its clearly intended to strongly encourage teaming; you get "phat lewt" much faster that way. I see that as a good thing, despite the fact that a good chunk of my play time is brief periods early mornings without enough time for TFs, because I suspect most people in a MMO like to team more then solo, given a choice. Otherwise you can pick up a console game and not have to pay a monthly fee. Many people, like myself, don't always have the choice to team and have to solo some or most of the time but people interacting is what tends to make friends and a social system which are more likely to bring people back.
Second, its clearly intended to be more difficult and require more coordination to win. The coordination has the potential to feed into the item above, get more interaction which has the *potential* at least to get people involved in the community more. Obviously some /gignore will result as well. 
The difficulty provides a reason for people who were getting a bit bored with the lack of challenge (as they perceive it) of the main game to stick around. It also provides a reason for people who don't want more challenge to leave. Really, though, since the devs have provided parallel paths that are slower, but more like the classic game, the subset of people who would leave are the ones who want the best lewt but ALSO want it fast but ALSO don't want more challenge. The devs are obviously placing a bet that thats a smaller subset of players then the ones who wanted a new level of challenge.
If they had eliminated possibilities to advance other than the new, challenging routes I would fault them for it. Since all of the "classic" game is still there, though, I don't have a problem with them making the most efficient advancement hinge on teaming and on new levels of coordination required. I think that overall, those aspects of the game will increase the social aspect of the game that will keep players playing long term, so I'm in favor of them.
Quote:
True, however, it's unfortunately it's also owned by investors. The vision often MUST take a back seat to business. A lot of designers (funny enough a from a few closed NCSoft games) need to learn that. Or to the maximum extreme: Star Wars Galaxies. (though it hasn't closed down as far as I know,but it quickly shed A LOT of subs after it went to far in the "change department").|
Originally Posted by Mav
That I agree with, not just in video games either. And I think its important to realize that it goes both ways, too much change or too much status quo.
But, a game is someone elses' vision and that vision is in its way an opinion. That makes it neither right or wrong. The designer has as much right to express their opinion through their design, as we do in either liking or disliking that design. |
I would argue incremental changes (see this game's history: the slow addition of inventions after ED) are better than drastic all of a sudden changes. (again see this game's history: pvp)
As you said it's a balancing act.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
I think Sam's thread-starter was more about a general concept than being specifically about City of Heroes or about espousing a particular view, at least initially.|
Originally Posted by Mav
The question here is, is the Op willing to spend $15 a month for something that seems to be bringing him more pain than joy - and that is up to him.
|
I agree with your assertion that this is an issue having to do with creative vision of the designer. Any designer who deliberately creates a game that is intended to force a player to pursue some activity that is novel in a potentially unpleasant way is a designer who is trying to push the player into accepting a new kind of gameplay.
In that case, the vision is either a good one or a poor one. I'm reminded of the transition between Fallout 1/2 and Fallout 3 which took an entirely different tack from its predecessors. People who liked the gameplay from the first two games and expected or wanted more of the same were finding their expectations challenged. Whether this was a case of evolution in action or a case of designers forcing players to adapt to a new design for the sake of vanity or vision is open to debate. The mixed review of Fallout 3 reflect the mixed feelings of a playerbase that got something other than what they had desired to get.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the measure of how much of a game-changer Fallout 3 is may be that future games follow its design or don't follow it when faced with their own decisions about how to evolve a venerable RPG series.
In the meantime, if you wanted more Fallout, then you had no choice. You were forced to accept the gameplay that was offered to you in Fallout 3. I believe that this is a better example of what Sam is considering than any particular thing in City of Heroes might happen to be.
Quote:
I want to address this, since it keeps coming up, both here and elsewhere. There are as many definitions of what constitutes being "forced" to do something in a game as there are people who play games. However, one has to keep a particular bit of context in mind - we are not forced to play games to begin with. Once we do play a game, anything we do, we do because we clearly and obviously chose to. As such, I prefer to use a definition of "forced" along the lines of "I have to do this if I want to achieve that." This means we're never forced to do anything, strictly speaking, but but we often are forced to do things if we want to get much mileage out of the game.|
Originally Posted by Mav
So this is my first post ever so be nice - but really I'm confused by this topic overall. No one is forcing or asking anyone to do anything they DO NOT WANT TO DO.
|
For instance, I am "forced" to participate in the plotline of Mass Effect, and would be forced to do it even if I didn't enjoy the storyline (which I do, but suppose I don't for the sake of argument). I'm forced to engage in Mass Effect's storyline because the game doesn't progress without engaging in it, the game does not progress WELL without being aware of it, and there is, quite frankly, very little else of note in that game other than the storyline. As such, I have a choice between playing Mass Effect for the story or not playing Mass Effect at all. And "just stop playing" tends to be an undesirable effect for game designers.
That said, has City of Heroes done anything to FORCE me out of my comfort zone? Not entirely, but it has certainly tried. One of the game's bigger draws is making your characters more powerful, so when additional avenues for this are introduced, players begin to feel forced to participate in them, as it's still more of improving your character, which is what many are here to do. Has that FORCED me to change the way I play? No. Not even close. As has been said - the old game is still here, so I always have the option of playing that.
However, as I said, my questions isn't about Incarnates. I didn't title this "Should Incarnates take us out of our comfort zone?" for a reason. This is a broader question of game design which extends past this one single subsystem and even past this one single game. It's a basic philosophy. Do you pander to your players, trying to guess what they want and provide that, or do you try to push your players in new directions in an attempt to get them to want something else? It's a valid question, and how far in what direction each of us is willing to go is interesting to hear.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
What designers need to be careful with (and this is critical for sequels of current single player games as well as mmos) is going so far out of a well established property's comfort zone that they botch what people loved about a property in the first place.
|
When a sequel makes a genre switch, it's making a huge gamble. The gamble is that this will earn said sequel more new players than the number of old players who like the old game but not the new one. Of course, some people can make the switch easier than others, but in many cases, fans will be lost. And it's quite natural to do so. They liked the original, but because the sequel is a wholly different game, it is no longer to their liking.
For instance, I found Resident Evil 4's outdoor beat-em-up gameplay to be superior to that of the older instalments, but at the same time recognise that it's a fully different game.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Are you one of those Plank Monks from Monty Pythong, Sam? The ones in Holy Grail who smack themselves repeated in the forehead with planks of wood?
 |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scientist
My comfort zone is rather large, as one of the things I enjoy most is finding new ways to apply tools within the game to solve new problems.
|
However, any way you slice it, I keep wanting to play the game like I would Soul Reaver or Oni or Fighting Force - as a "beat-em-up meets shoot-em-up," to quote PC Gamer from 15 years ago. That said, I will try to look at things from your perspective in the future and see if I can't extract some extra fun out of problem-solving, as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Good call, and this is one I ran afoul of. I heard tell that Fallout 3 was modelled after one of the Elder Scrolls games. I say "one of the..." because I didn't play any of these games, because I didn't really like any of these games. I have my reasons. As someone who liked Fallout and wanted a sequel, but didn't like Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3 was a massive disappointment. I wasn't really a fan of the story or of the gameplay. It was, in no uncertain terms, an entirely different game that just happened to share a title with two others that I really liked.|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
I'm reminded of the transition between Fallout 1/2 and Fallout 3 which took an entirely different tack from its predecessors. People who liked the gameplay from the first two games and expected or wanted more of the same were finding their expectations challenged. Whether this was a case of evolution in action or a case of designers forcing players to adapt to a new design for the sake of vanity or vision is open to debate. The mixed review of Fallout 3 reflect the mixed feelings of a playerbase that got something other than what they had desired to get.
In the meantime, if you wanted more Fallout, then you had no choice. You were forced to accept the gameplay that was offered to you in Fallout 3. I believe that this is a better example of what Sam is considering than any particular thing in City of Heroes might happen to be. |
I should have known better than to expect anything like Black Isle's old adventures, now that they're gone and the world has forgotten their ways, but it was still a massive letdown for me as a fan. As I hear it, though, Fallout 3 won over a lot of fans to the franchise who hadn't been interested before, so it looks like their tradeoff worked. Just not for me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Are you sure about that? Jack Emmert is a great example of a game designer who was all about forcing play styles. Also, look at the Incarnate system and its heavy bias towards encouraging participation in the Trials as opposed to the conversion "solo" route.|
Originally Posted by DanZero
"Hmmmmm. How can I get these players out of their comfort zone?" Game design is not approached that way.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Going into an MMO, one should expect to do some teaming. If they don't need to and don't care to, awesome. But it shouldn't be seen as the game forcing you out of the comfort zone, as people signed onto a MMO.
|
The best comics are still 10�!
My City of Heroes Blog Freedom Feature Article: "Going Rageless?"
If you only read one guide this year, make it this one.
Super Reflexes: the Golden Fox of power sets!
WARNING: I bold names.
Quote:
In that context I see that as a valid point. I still quibble though with the idea of being forced to do anything in a game you pay for. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
However, as I said, my questions isn't about Incarnates. I didn't title this "Should Incarnates take us out of our comfort zone?" for a reason. This is a broader question of game design which extends past this one single subsystem and even past this one single game. It's a basic philosophy. Do you pander to your players, trying to guess what they want and provide that, or do you try to push your players in new directions in an attempt to get them to want something else? It's a valid question, and how far in what direction each of us is willing to go is interesting to hear. |
Also note, I did not focus on incarnate content, but on the fact that no matter what is changed, someone will not be happy.
Quit being so stubborn and try all the new stuff since i4!
Quote:
Hey, I tried City of Villains, didn't I? |
Originally Posted by Seek_Trouble
Quit being so stubborn and try all the new stuff since i4!
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Then I'll give you a very simple example: Battle Toads. This is a game which requires you to be VERY good at it, if you want to get anywhere at all in the game. It's not a question of semantics or tolerances. The game FORCES you to be an extremely good player "if you want to play it."|
Originally Posted by Mav
Also note, I did not focus on incarnate content, but on the fact that no matter what is changed, someone will not be happy.
|
Of course, there are always options to try a game before you pay money for it, some more honourable than others, so for one-time purchase games, there's rarely an argument to be made, though there is still room. As was mentioned before, a sequel to a game you like more or less "forces" you to play it, because you liked the old game and wanted something just like it. Oftentimes, a sequel won't be just like the game it extends. As such, people's fandom for a particular franchise may make them play a game they aren't completely happy with.
In my case, I'm "forced" to play Warrior Within because I like Sands of Time and The Two Thrones so much, and the trilogy doesn't make sense without part 2. But it's more an annoying game than it is a BAD game, so it's not such a problem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Comfort and fun are, of course, terribly subjective.
To me, it is either fun, or not. If it is not fun, then I won't continue to do it.
As for comfort, there is nothing in any video game I have ever done that has made me feel what I would refer to as discomfort. Some things are not fun or entertaining to play, but none of them ever made me uncomfortable.
What seems, to me, that is bubbling forth from a number of players and being referred to here as comfort is something I can relate to however, because of watching my wife play another game.
In that game, she is pretty much unable to make story choices that she considers to be mean or evil. She gleefully cuts things in half and giggles about all the realistic blood flying around, however. She always chooses the good and nice story path and is uncomfortable making any decision that her own moral code would not condone.
Additionally, she does not play multi-player games, with the exception of those that we can play together. MMOs are out of the question, because she is uncomfortable playing with so many other people, for a variety of reasons. The mechanics, in a sense, make her uncomfortable.
So, while I find no discomfort in games, I understand it better than I might otherwise from talking for hours on end with her about it while we play our respective games three feet from one another.
What I do not understand is why anyone would continue to try and justify playing CoH when it becomes not fun, or uncomfortable. The day, nay the minute, that City is no longer fun for me, I will simply not play it any longer. For me, it is really that simple.
I really do not understand the level of analyzing (and agonizing) that some posters seem to put into the various aspects of both game play and story in City to, in some way, convince themselves to play or not to play. In short, I don't do angst. Can't stand it.
So, from my viewpoint, personally, it is not possible to take me out of my comfort zone in a game, because I cannot fathom a way for it to make me uncomfortable. I can, however, understand that an evil story could turn someone off comfort-wise and I can understand that a mode of game-play could not be fun for someone.
Additionally, I thrive on change, which apparently makes me abnormal. I see a new thing and I run over to check it out and figure out how it works, etc. If I like it great, if not, I move on to something else or return to what I was doing. To me, stagnant equals waiting to die.
So, I think that if there is no choice, story-wise or mechanics-wise, that keeps you comfortable you should probably just find another game. It's what my wife does and it works well for her.
As for the specific question of 'should', that is another hot-button for me. Should is a 'guilt word' like 'could' and 'would'. It implies an obligation or responsibility. I view games as art, and therefore they just exist. I take them for what they are, just as I view a statue, I like it or I don't. Having known many artists in my life, they seem to ascribe very little underlying meaning, generally, to what they make; it is the critics and observers that typically lay on all of the meanings to each brush stroke or chisel mark.
Games, therefore, have to me only one obligation, which is to be entertaining. They have no other obligations. There is nothing they should or should not do other than be fun. If they are not fun, or certain aspects are not fun, then those aspects or the entire game will simply not be something I will play.
"The side that is unhappy is not the side that the game was intended to make happy, or promised to make happy, or focused on making happy. The side that is unhappy is the side that is unhappy. That's all." - Arcanaville
"Surprised your guys' arteries haven't clogged with all that hatred yet." - Xzero45
Quote:
Does it cause you angst?
|
Originally Posted by MajorPrankster
In short, I don't do angst. Can't stand it.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Feels more like heartburn, or that taste you get in your mouth when you throw-up just a little after watching the young and hip actors react to something bad happening on shows like SGU. |
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Does it cause you angst?
|
"The side that is unhappy is not the side that the game was intended to make happy, or promised to make happy, or focused on making happy. The side that is unhappy is the side that is unhappy. That's all." - Arcanaville
"Surprised your guys' arteries haven't clogged with all that hatred yet." - Xzero45
Quote:
Meanwhile, if you wanted more classic Fallout because you enjoyed the gameplay of classic Fallout, you couldn't get more Fallout. You got a post-apocalyptic Elder Scrolls. If you didn't enjoy the gameplay of Elder Scrolls, you got nothing.|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
In that case, the vision is either a good one or a poor one. I'm reminded of the transition between Fallout 1/2 and Fallout 3 which took an entirely different tack from its predecessors. People who liked the gameplay from the first two games and expected or wanted more of the same were finding their expectations challenged. Whether this was a case of evolution in action or a case of designers forcing players to adapt to a new design for the sake of vanity or vision is open to debate. The mixed review of Fallout 3 reflect the mixed feelings of a playerbase that got something other than what they had desired to get.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the measure of how much of a game-changer Fallout 3 is may be that future games follow its design or don't follow it when faced with their own decisions about how to evolve a venerable RPG series. In the meantime, if you wanted more Fallout, then you had no choice. You were forced to accept the gameplay that was offered to you in Fallout 3. I believe that this is a better example of what Sam is considering than any particular thing in City of Heroes might happen to be. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MajorPrankster
Comfort and fun are, of course, terribly subjective.
To me, it is either fun, or not. If it is not fun, then I won't continue to do it. As for comfort, there is nothing in any video game I have ever done that has made me feel what I would refer to as discomfort. Some things are not fun or entertaining to play, but none of them ever made me uncomfortable. |
Now what with "fun" being such a subjective thing, no, games shouldn't force people into anything. Yes, they should definitely encourage people to try the new thing, because some people will like it once they've tried it. But if you've tried it, and don't like it, "forcing" you to do it, however you define "force," just leads to frustration.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Quote:
I'd find it incredibly unlikely that you were alone even if no one here had affirmed that you are not. However, I do suspect very strongly that you are in a significant minority of players. I am one of very few people I knew who started playing this game who still do play it, and they all left because they wanted something new. If CoH had not changed in some notable ways, even I probably would have stopped playing it seriously around the I12-ish timeframe. That's not because of anything that happened in I12, but because I think that, without Inventions to give me something to chase, I would have bored of playing without goals too much by then to remain active.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
This is probably where you and I will have to disagree. I'm probably alone in feeling this way, but I have to be honest - what I do now in-game to have fun is precisely the same thing I did back in May 2004 when I first joined - I made cool characters and I ran missions with them. Oftentimes THE SAME missions I did back then. And I really have no problem with it.
|
I actually consider my viewpoint on CoH more like yours than like most of those bygone players, in a lot of ways. That really suggests to me that your particular personal view on this is fairly out there on the edge. Even so, I don't think you're alone, and even though I think you have a pretty fringe perspective, I think there are people who share it to degrees. I very much don't think this is an "either/or" type perspective. People's tolerance for it varies so that they paint a kind of gradient. I think you just happen to be a very deep shade of black on that spectrum.
Edit: My own take on change in this game usually goes like this. I start with worry that I won't enjoy the new changes, followed by lots of reading and then experimentation when details become available to figure out what I really think of the on the change, followed by determining how to adapt my play to maximize my enjoyment in light of the change (which may involve avoiding/minimizing exposure to it if I dislike the change), followed eventually by absorbing the change into what I consider my baseline such that the next new thing starts the cycle again.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
I prefer entertainment that takes me out of my comfort zone, that's why I like sci-fi . There is something to be said for more passive entertainment [I also like Sci-Action ], and it really depends on the context.
I think with MMOs, you can see the difference very well drawn when you consider the difference in players who pvp and players who don't pvp. Yes there are many points in between, but the contrast I think is a valid one.
In general though, it's all a matter of tolerances and choose appropriate genres. And realize that when a game in this genre stops changing, that game is dead. So for this genre, you probably do need a greater tolerance for change than other gaming genres.
Let's Dance!
Quote:
To be fair (and specific), I'm not against adding more ways to play the game, with papers, tips, the Architect and so forth. However, I am somewhat disappointed that regular missions seem to have been relegated to such a low priority of late. Sure, we get a few new ones occasionally, that's not a problem. But with the advent of all the different types of rewards for all the different types of new activities, it seems like the old activities have fallen behind.|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
I'd find it incredibly unlikely that you were alone even if no one here had affirmed that you are not. However, I do suspect very strongly that you are in a significant minority of players. I am one of very few people I knew who started playing this game who still do play it, and they all left because they wanted something new. If CoH had not changed in some notable ways, even I probably would have stopped playing it seriously around the I12-ish timeframe. That's not because of anything that happened in I12, but because I think that, without Inventions to give me something to chase, I would have bored of playing without goals too much by then to remain active.
|
To be a bit more genera, there's a tendency in game design to make your newest addition also be the new focal point of the game and the best of the very best, even when it's not appended to the end of the game. This creates a sort of content power creep, where every new expansion, DLC or mission pack has to be "better" than the previous one, to the point where the strongest items in the game are those from the current expansion and the rest go in descending order by the age of the expansion they came with.
In City of Heroes, we see this with the Architect, which I'm told is a source for easy drops. After that, we see this with Alignment Merits, which I'm told are an even better source for easy drops. Many people, when confronted with my trademark "What are you up to today?" greeting will respond with "Running Hero Merits." Normally I'd ask why even if I can guess at an answer, in the hopes that the person would elaborate and so strike up a conversation, but in this case there just isn't anything to talk about - it's good rewards. In fact, I've considered asking people why they don't run just ordinary missions, but I realise I have no argument to entice them with even for the sake of idle conversation. And that's unusual, since I can make an argument for almost anything.
WoW, as I hear, is notorious for sort of "replacement" design, where they'll always creep their level and their gear and their raids to up the ante, as it were, leaving older raids and older quests to gather dust. Now, I did hear they'd repurposed some of their older raids into level cap raids, but I don't know enough about that to comment. I do know, however, that this sort of design can and does often lead to a part of the game stagnating and becoming that much less enticing, if just by comparison.
Now, I'm still here, so the old game has clearly not stagnated in my eyes. I wouldn't be paying out of my pocket if it had. However, the "Neuron design" approach does run the risk of getting there eventually. At this point, I'm really not sure if the old game is indeed officially supported and recognised as an intended part of the game, or if it's regarded as outmoded legacy content still in the game because the money and manhours haven't been there to retrofit it to be like the new content. And honestly, I'm not sure which case is better.
To summarise: Yeah, I'm probably in a minority, but it keeps me here and subscribed, so it has to be good enough.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
I can comment on the repurposed zones. But with the exception of Naxx, they really are all new content, just using the old zone art resources. Naxx was mostly a mechanical update [which worked out nicely given initially Naxx had very little 'play' time]. It's nice, and works, but it also showcases a bit of the design difference with WoW and CoH.
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
WoW, as I hear, is notorious for sort of "replacement" design, where they'll always creep their level and their gear and their raids to up the ante, as it were, leaving older raids and older quests to gather dust. Now, I did hear they'd repurposed some of their older raids into level cap raids, but I don't know enough about that to comment. I do know, however, that this sort of design can and does often lead to a part of the game stagnating and becoming that much less enticing, if just by comparison.
|
Let's Dance!
Quote:
I think that Blizzard said that around the time of Burning Crusade (or maybe Lich King release) that around 0.5% of the total player based had ever experienced Naxx...
|
Originally Posted by reiella
I can comment on the repurposed zones. But with the exception of Naxx, they really are all new content, just using the old zone art resources. Naxx was mostly a mechanical update [which worked out nicely given initially Naxx had very little 'play' time]. It's nice, and works, but it also showcases a bit of the design difference with WoW and CoH.
|
Quote:
I think you're oversimplifying the situation here. Games are not made for one person. They're made for thousands. And everyone has different comfort zones. So pretty much everything in a game is likely to go outside someone's comfort zone. You mentioned that the market goes outside your comfort zone, but for a lot of people, getting the market added to the game was the best thing that ever happened to it (myself included). It fits right in my comfort zone. And everything is like that. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
It's the easiest and most recent example, but it's far from the only one. I can easily cite the Market as another such example. The Market and Inventions are City of Heroes' answer to loot, that much is beyond reasonable debate at this point, and both systems bring with them that same "phat lute" mentality that is prevalent in other games. Some people embraced the system and fell in love with it. I find it to be cumbersome, clunky, slow, unwieldy and very, very disorderly. To me, Inventions represent a system that, in order for me to engage in it, I have to go quite a ways out of my own comfort zone.
As it is with Inventions, so it is with quite a few other things (the Architect, Alignment Merits, Vanguard costumes, temporary powers, etc.), when I sit down and run a tally of what must happen to my playstyle in order for me to get into any of these, I realise that that would make the game not fun to play. Hence, I am facing the choice between going out of my comfort zone and playing in a way I don't enjoy so as to engage in some of the newer things, or not doing so and effectively missing out, as it were. This isn't restricted to teaming, as I feel the same way about quite a few soloable activities, while at the same time enjoying a few teaming activities, as well. This is a broader question than just specific examples, however. The meat of it comes down to whether we should accept and indeed encourage games to nudge, coerce and eventually force us to do things we may not enjoy at the time, in the hopes that we will eventually change our minds after having experienced them, or whether games should be less demanding and more benevolent, allowing us to play as we choose, even if that means doing it "wrong." And it's not just an idle question, either, because it goes to a root decision in game design: How many "tough cookies" do you feel you should give your players? |
I think the best a game can do is to be up front about what it includes. And if it's going to add things that change the existing paradigm, try not to force them on people.
Quote:
Right. It's going to be extremely hard for an MMO to cater to everybody's comfort zones fully. They will inevitably include content that isn't going to suit certain play styles. I think the only problem would be if an MMO makes major changes to the existing game mechanics, shifting from some comfort zones to others. (Example: Star Wars Galaxies NGE.)|
Originally Posted by firespray
I think you're oversimplifying the situation here. Games are not made for one person. They're made for thousands. And everyone has different comfort zones. So pretty much everything in a game is likely to go outside someone's comfort zone. You mentioned that the market goes outside your comfort zone, but for a lot of people, getting the market added to the game was the best thing that ever happened to it (myself included). It fits right in my comfort zone. And everything is like that.
|
If CoH changed things so that a team was required for any mission in the game, it would change right out of my comfort zone, and I would quit. Similarly if the game switched to a first person shooter mode, with no third person perspective available. I don't expect things like that to happen. If the devs continue to add new content that I won't be comfortable playing, I'll be disappointed at the lack of new stuff that suits me, but the content I've been playing is still here and unchanged.
Agreed with the Star Wars: NGE change.
What made it even more galling was that they had only released another expansion a month or 2 before hand, and then all in one go managed to practically gut out a LOT of the classes of the game, either via combining them, or just flat out removal of the class, and making you something that you didnt want to be.
Oh, and just before the release of NGE, SOE had the gall to keep on saying that no major changes were on the way either.
Quote:
Indeed. Getting back to the notion that being "forced" to do something in this context probably really means someone wants the end result but not the activity that leads to it, I think that Inventions and the things around it (including the Market and various forms of Merits) are sometimes characterized in the wrong way.|
Originally Posted by firespray
I think the best a game can do is to be up front about what it includes. And if it's going to add things that change the existing paradigm, try not to force them on people.
|
Most players view the purpose of a things like Inventions to be the benefits one achieves by obtaining Inventions themselves. Some (like Sam) have distaste for the various hills the devs have given us to climb before we can obtain those rewards. We don't get deep access these rewards automatically - we have to go out of our way to obtain lots of them, and some people seem to wonder why that has to be. They would prefer that we had to do nothing special and just have these rewards be bestowed on us naturally, for doing other things we did before.
However, I think that this misses the realization that the very process itself of working towards lots of Inventions is actually the goal of the Invention system. The benefits that Inventions bestow are intended to compel players to ascend the hills the devs have placed between us and those rewards.
Now, there's nothing wrong with asking for alternative means of obtaining such goodies, and the devs have actually given us several now. It's just important to understand that, if having some sort of hill to climb is indeed the very point, all the devs will do is give us new, differently shaped hills with somewhat different scenery. Some may be more pleasant to a given player than others, but all will require some climbing, and none will be particularly faster to climb except based on your willingness to climb a particular type of hill.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
When a game forces me out of my comfort zone, I assume that it is trying to teach me something. I like it when games alternate between teaching me skills and asking me to apply them in various situations. When a game on the one hand has nothing more to teach me, or on the other hand asks me to learn more faster than I want to, I lose interest.
So, yes, I prefer that games take me out of my comfort zone, but by steps. Games that do not ask me to grow are boring. Games that expect me to be grown before I approach them are frustrating.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
This is what I mean when I say designers need to be careful in "trying new things" versus "sticking to what works." It's a balance.
That I agree with, not just in video games either. And I think its important to realize that it goes both ways, too much change or too much status quo.
But, a game is someone elses' vision and that vision is in its way an opinion. That makes it neither right or wrong.
The designer has as much right to express their opinion through their design, as we do in either liking or disliking that design.