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
Another disconnect I'm seeing in this thread is forgetting that there are different degrees of discomfort a game can inflict.
Are we talking about changes that blur the boundaries we've already known and followed, but those boundaries are still visible? Are we talking about fundamental shifts in game-play where instead of just erasing the chalkboard lines, you ripped the board off the wall and threw it away?
In this game, if all you want to do is run story arcs solo, if you're asking for more and newer arcs to run, you're asking for change. It might not be a large shift, but you're moving from your stagnate world into something that will be unknown for x amount of time, until you've memorized the new maps, found where all the contacts are hiding, and gotten bored with the story.
If the Devs say "OK, I'll give you new story arcs to run, but they'll have some new mechanics in them, so they won't be more of the same formula," that's a larger shift from stagnant. It's not just a new skin on the walls of the map, or a new enemy group. Now you have to think about what you're doing to accomplish the goals of the mission. Praetoria is a good example of this. The Morality missions have two choices, with very different outcomes. They chain objectives to follow one after the other, instead of laying them all out at once so you can complete them in any order. Sometimes the new mechanics feel a bit more constricting, or railroading, and that introduces a new level of discomfort for those that aren't necessarily looking for content that different. This is where people start deciding whether to continue playing this new content or not, when you can't totally play the way you used to to accomplish the task.
Then there's the chestnut some folks are fond of pulling out: "This game has never been about X, and now the Devs are starting to put it in." First it was Inventions, then the Mission Architect, and now Incarnates. None of these have ripped the chalkboard off the wall. The core game that you're comfortable with is still there, waiting to be played. There might be a few less people willing to join you there, but there's a lot of reasons that's happening that have nothing to do with the newest system in the game. I think so much negativity is being presented about Incarnates in particular because it's the newest thing to focus on. That's understandable, but flawed. Incarnates will no more change the fabric of the game than any of the previous shifting moments have. RP will still go on. People will still PvP. Some folks will still feed on the tears of those that cry about the market. There'll still be people that just wanna solo, and there will still be those that don't wanna play something unless they've got a full team with a hundred AVs to fight.
Any new system the Devs put in, if it's a good one, can be woven into your level of game involvement as little or as much as you want. You can dabble, you can get interested, or you can get fanatical. You can completely ignore it, or find a way to make it work for you and the amount of time you're willing to invest in it.
I'll repeat what I said earlier: There's no way for new content to NOT take people out of their comfort zones. There's only the degree to which it does so. For some it's negligible. For others it hurts. Devs shoot for the middle whenever they can. It's the only thing they can do.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
Quote:
In what way does a game's lasting future effects relate to whether or not a game can make you uncomfortable at the time you are playing it, or create a situation you avoid because you believe it would make you uncomfortable if you decided to enter it? That seems to be a non-sequitor by any definition of "comfort zone" except for Dr. Manhattan.|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
Didn't say, "I don't care." Games can and should be fun pass-times, but they don't have much effect beyond the game. I played Final Fantasy 7 when it came out. Great fun, but I haven't played that game in what 15 years? There's no long lasting effect on my life from having played that game.
That's all I meant. |
Also, you didn't use the specific words "I don't care" but you did specifically state and emphasize that nothing in this game matters at all. I believe its a natural extrapolation to assume that things that don't matter are things people don't care about. If people care about them, they have to matter at least a little to them. That's embedded in the definition of what it means to care about something.
Quote:
| Yes, I do. I made a value judgment. "Comfort zone" is a meaningless term. Many folks here have spent this thread arguing what such a term means in context of a game. So I attached a meaning to it as I described. |
Remember that we're not discussing whether people should allow games to make them uncomfortable. If you believe that to be false, that's your opinion. But that is not relevant to whether they *do* feel uncomfortable, and whether game designers should acknowledge that fact and avoid such situations or ignore that fact and not care if such situations occur. You said your answer to that question was that the game designers *should* care and avoid those situations, because you said your answer to the question of whether games should present situations that make you uncomfortable was "no."
I'm beginning to think you're misinterpreting the question based on the subject line and not the content of the OP. It sounds like you've interpreted the question to ask "should we allow games to make us uncomfortable" when the question seems to be the converse "should game designers care if a game makes its players uncomfortable." Those are two different questions, and it sounds like you're responding to the first one when I think Sam is asking the latter one, and that's why there's an inconsistency between what you say your position is and what you claim your answer to the question is. I still think you have them backwards.
Whether Sam is making another indictment on MMOs is not relevant to the larger issue, which I believe to be a valid MMO design question independent of Sam's likes or dislikes, which I'm fairly well familiar with, because I believe the question is interesting as a matter of degree, not of absolutes.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
I want to cut out this small part of Arcana's post and present it by itself, because this is almost the entirety of the spirit of what I wanted to bring up originally. How uncomfortable are people willing to be when playing games, and how uncomfortable should developers of games allow their games to be INTENTIONALLY?|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Remember that we're not discussing whether people should allow games to make them uncomfortable. If you believe that to be false, that's your opinion. But that is not relevant to whether they *do* feel uncomfortable, and whether game designers should acknowledge that fact and avoid such situations or ignore that fact and not care if such situations occur.
|
To add a slight appendix, it's not just a question of whether developers should care about comfort zones or not - in my opinion it's just good sense to at least be aware - but rather a question if developers should DELIBERATELY design games that push us out of our comfort zone. Which, by the way, I'm not claiming is a wrong and evil tactic. It's been made pretty clear to me that some people simply like to be pushed, as well as to push themselves, and face things that could be defined as "unpleasant." Their reasons for this seem to vary, but their reasons for this are irrelevant to the fact that some people simply choose allow themselves to be taken out of their comfort zone.
Should developers be aware that people have comfort zones? Yes, they very much should be. It's only good sense. Should they choose to avoid pushing those, or should they choose to push them intentionally? I don't know. THAT is the heart of the question, and it is a question that has no one right answer, and not even a clearly separable set of stances on it. As Arcana points out, it's a matter of degrees of tolerance and preference, which is why I find the answers given so far to be fascinating and enlightening at the same time.
My position on the matter is pretty much public knowledge at this point, which makes it, and deconstructions thereof, largely uninteresting to practically anyone, myself included. I'm more interested to hear other people's positions on the matter.
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.
|
How large a "comfort" zone should the developers aim for though?
Hell, just by aiming at the forum users here, we can see that there is already a large range of "comfort zones" to go for.
For me, i have a *huge* dislike of the WoW style raiding, where you can blitz all the way through, kill the big bad, and walk away with *exactly* nothing useful to you. WoW raiding is definately out of my "comfort zone".
On the flip side though, I *DO* enjoy the CoX style, where even failure results in at least *some* progress.
PvP in most MMO's is outside of my "comfort zone", including CoX. But I *LOVE* the small/medium even huge fleet battles that happen in Eve Online. Some people get intimidated by the huge numbers that can end up fighting (I think the record is 3200 in the same system all fighting) but even inside your own fleet, everyone has a role, and a 2-3 day old character isnt just going to be a meatshield.
Crafting... not outside of my comfort zone in "City of"... most definately is outside of my comfort zone in Eve Online (on anything beyond a small personal usage).
Strangely though, I *DONT* dislike marketeering. I know that it can involve some time investment... but as has been proven by several people, you dont need a large starting capital to make money (I think in Eve Online someone made over a billion ISK on a starting character inside of one month starting with 5000 ISK. The only advantage they had over "Older characters" was more knowledge of how the market worked. )
Developing PURELY to within a comfort zone and never straying from it... eventually the game will get *very* dull as even introducing new enemy abilities can be viewed as "outside of the comfort zone" so eventually all you end up doing is changing the skin on a model.
They might have the *best* background in the world, but if they act the same as every other mob, its a skin change at best.
Even changing some of the game Lore so that it fits better, wipes out plot holes (even the best scripts in the world can have plot holes...) and just freshens up the place can take people out of their "comfort zone" purely because it is no longer the world that they know and love (as much).
Yes, I know that I am just throwing up arguments, some of them appear to be quite silly... but I know people who have opposed similar changes to these (in other games, not just CoX) purely because they are "out of their comfort zone".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I want to cut out this small part of Arcana's post and present it by itself, because this is almost the entirety of the spirit of what I wanted to bring up originally. How uncomfortable are people willing to be when playing games, and how uncomfortable should developers of games allow their games to be INTENTIONALLY?
To add a slight appendix, it's not just a question of whether developers should care about comfort zones or not - in my opinion it's just good sense to at least be aware - but rather a question if developers should DELIBERATELY design games that push us out of our comfort zone. Which, by the way, I'm not claiming is a wrong and evil tactic. It's been made pretty clear to me that some people simply like to be pushed, as well as to push themselves, and face things that could be defined as "unpleasant." Their reasons for this seem to vary, but their reasons for this are irrelevant to the fact that some people simply choose allow themselves to be taken out of their comfort zone. Should developers be aware that people have comfort zones? Yes, they very much should be. It's only good sense. Should they choose to avoid pushing those, or should they choose to push them intentionally? I don't know. THAT is the heart of the question, and it is a question that has no one right answer, and not even a clearly separable set of stances on it. As Arcana points out, it's a matter of degrees of tolerance and preference, which is why I find the answers given so far to be fascinating and enlightening at the same time. My position on the matter is pretty much public knowledge at this point, which makes it, and deconstructions thereof, largely uninteresting to practically anyone, myself included. I'm more interested to hear other people's positions on the matter. |
If the intent is to make the content more challenging, then yes. If the intent is to exclude players based on playstyle, no.
Quote:
Again...this is post set dead in the context of MMOs and COX in particular. I stated already that I'm referring to PVP in games across the board. As such...your statement isn't entirely correct as I'll show you below. |
Originally Posted by Ad Astra
To expand on this (because I agree with it completely)
Playing cooperatively makes my pretendy fun time game easier for me to accomplish the goal - whatever the mission or TF or zone event sets. |
Quote:
| Playing PvP does not make accomplishing the goal - which is to beat the other guy - easier. |
There are tons of PVP games that stress cooperation and helping your teammates in completing objectives.
Quote:
| I kinda found this assertion offensive. One should always be careful about making generalizations attributing motivations to others - especially in stating they are not "honest". |
I also took pains to explain where my perspective on that came from. Which is years of being involved in PVP gaming(and gaming in general) both casual and professional. You can of course say that it is anecdotal, but I think I've proved it out personally enough times that I at least have some confidence in what I say. If that offends you, then tough luck. I'm not going to say something to the contrary now just because you or some folks you may know are possible exceptions to the rule.
In all fairness...this forum is full of exceptions to general rules. Its why so few people post on forums versus the number that actively play the game.
Quote:
Really? Because I know quite a few people who flat out say "I don't PvP because I suck at it." How much more honest can you get?|
Originally Posted by Slashman
My argument was that people are seldom honest about why they won't do PVP(not MMO PVP...PVP period).
|
PvP is a zero-sum game. Someone wins, and someone loses, there's really no middle ground. Some people dislike that very concept, because they don't like anyone to lose.
Quote:
|
1) The PVP design of the game sucked and wasn't fairly balanced. (A gameplay issue) 2) One or more of your friends acted like jerks and ruined the game for you somehow. 3) You lost a lot and discovered that you don't like to lose so PVP is not for you. Maybe your skills weren't up to par and you felt embarrassed etc. |
Quote:
| The scenario that I find the least credible, as noted in my first post, is the one where a person says they are so non-competitive that the thought of even playing against their friends is terribly uncomfortable. I find it hard to believe because those same people likely play all sorts of other games where they can win and someone else loses or they competed in sports at one time or another or they tried their hardest to get a promotion before someone else at their job etc. |
Quote:
| Its human nature to want to do better. Anyone can suppress it, sure. My point is that most of the time people aren't being honest about it and the true problem lies elsewhere. |
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 think it's you who is misinterpreting. The OP asked whether games should take us out of our comfort zone. That's a purely subjective inquiry. I don't know who "us" is. So to answer the question, I answer the question based on my response to the question. Yes, I'm basing it on the title, because tl:dr is my standard response to Sam's rants at this point.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I'm beginning to think you're misinterpreting the question based on the subject line and not the content of the OP. It sounds like you've interpreted the question to ask "should we allow games to make us uncomfortable" when the question seems to be the converse "should game designers care if a game makes its players uncomfortable." Those are two different questions, and it sounds like you're responding to the first one when I think Sam is asking the latter one, and that's why there's an inconsistency between what you say your position is and what you claim your answer to the question is. I still think you have them backwards.
|
I'm not answering a question of game design.
Quote:
| Whether Sam is making another indictment on MMOs is not relevant to the larger issue, which I believe to be a valid MMO design question independent of Sam's likes or dislikes, which I'm fairly well familiar with, because I believe the question is interesting as a matter of degree, not of absolutes. |
EDIT: BTW I was happy to be a passive observer of this thread, but I wanted to make my position known when someone (you?) assumed how I felt about the matter.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
My game design philosophy is this: people have a wide variety of interests and comfort zones. You cannot specifically target or even a large percentage of them with all of your content for this reason.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I'm more interested to hear other people's positions on the matter.
|
So you have three choices: choose to make all of your content as minimally objectionable to the widest possible audience; choose to make content narrowly targeted at a small subset of all possible players; or choose to make a wide range of content knowing none of your players will find all of it objectionable.
Additionally, there is a related design decision that isn't binary, but must still be fixed: to what degree, or by what ratio, should player decisions map to gameplay consequences.
The latter probably requires some explanation. Suppose I create two in-game rewards, A and B. To achieve these rewards the player must take some action. The first choice I have to make is how many options there will be to get each reward. There might be only one way to get A, or there might be ten different ways. The second choice I have to make is how much overlap there is between the ways to get A and the ways to get B. There might be only one way to get A and only one way to get B, and it might be the same activity. In that case, A and B are not mutually exclusive pursuit goals. The act of pursuing A is the same as the act of pursuing B. On the other hand, there might be ten ways to get A and ten ways to get B, but there is no overlap between them. So while there are lots of ways to get A, and lots of ways to get B, you can't pursue them simultaneously.
When it comes to "choice" as it pertains to MMOs, these two elements represent different aspects of choice. Having lots of different ways to get something means you have lots of degrees of choice when pursuing a specific reward. Having lots of overlap between activities means you have lots of degrees of choice when performing a specific activity when it comes to gaining rewards. Why I'm bothering to articulate this is that I do not believe its universally true that having more of either kind of choice is automatically a good thing.
If you have too many ways to acquire everything, and every activity leads to nearly all rewards, it eliminates the sense that gameplay choices are important: no choice has any different consequences than any other, so all are essentially meaningless. In my opinion, that's not the sort of choice I would want to be emphasized in a game: the ability to choose whatever you want because all choices have the same effect.
There has to be a balance between what I call lattitude - the ability for players to make "free choices" that have minimal consequences - and determination - the ability for players to make decisions that have unique consequences relative to all other decisions. In other words, I would make six activities: three would grant A and three would grant B and none would grant both. Players have *some* latitude to pick how they get those rewards, but they also determine what their reward will be by their actions.
All of that is to say this: since I believe games should balance latitude and determination, and because I believe games should target widely rather than narrowly, it is logically inevitable that my game design philosophy mandates that game designers recognize that some of their content will fall outside their target audiences comfort zone, some of that content will likely be mandatory to make certain kinds of progress in the game, and therefore the game will inevitably present an uncomfortable choice to some subset of the players. And that means the mere fact that some players assert the game is presenting uncomfortable situations isn't a priori proof of a game flaw. In fact, if *no* players believe this occurs, it would suggest to me that I had likely watered my choices down too much, and most players believed the consequences of their actions was far more trivial than I had intended.
In other words, if no one believed any choice I had put into a game I had designed was an uncomfortable one, I would conclude that either I was the greatest game designer on Earth, or my choices sucked. Before I started writing my acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in MMOs, I would review my game design choices first.
That is not to say that everyone or even a majority of everyone has to feel uncomfortable about a game choice in a well designed game. It only says that people are sufficiently different that if *no one* feels that way, I almost certainly would have failed to hit the target I was aiming at.
Its like trying to make spicy food. If everyone complains its too hot to eat, its probably a failure as food. If not one complains its too hot to eat, its probably a failure at being spicy.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Not much. But to say you suck at all PVP(across all games of all genres) is a rather difficult statement to accurately make. It would probably be more accurate to say you suck at the PVP games you've tried. That's not actually the same thing.|
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
Really? Because I know quite a few people who flat out say "I don't PvP because I suck at it." How much more honest can you get?
|
Quote:
| PvP is a zero-sum game. Someone wins, and someone loses, there's really no middle ground. Some people dislike that very concept, because they don't like anyone to lose. |
TF2 even awards you for just doing what your chosen class does well with a variety of perks and achievements regardless of if your team loses every single round.
Quote:
| That third one is important, because it's the very nature of PvP that your skills must be up to par in order to participate. Whereas in cooperative play, the bar is much lower. I might have an uber multi-billion inf build, but my friend who is using only SOs and took whatever powers sounded cool and whose reflexes aren't quite up to par is still contributing. In a PvP environment, I'd just annihilate him. Now you tell me, which environment is more comfortable for said friend? |
Quote:
| I can honestly tell you I have not participated in a competitive sport since high school, and that was only because they made us do it. A lot of other competitive games, such as board games, have an element of luck involved. |
Quote:
| As for competing professionally, it is something you have to do, not something people necessarily want to do. I'm sure a lot of people would be happiest if both they and the other guy could get the promotion, so they wouldn't have to compete.. |
My point is that competition or the drive to do better is part of human nature. It allows us to progress. I absolutely don't know anyone who is so absolutely repulsed at the idea of harmless competition that it carries over into playing a game with friends.
Here's the other key thing. Getting together to play a few rounds of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory with friends, has never caused me any high levels of stress and quite the opposite has helped me to relax after a hard, long week at work. The only thing that truly attaches stress to a video game is the person sitting behind the keyboard and mouse. Because everything else takes place in your head.
Quote:
| That's a very narrow view of human nature you present there. What about people for whom "good enough" really is good enough? Granted, in real life you might call them slackers, or lazy, but what's wrong with taking that approach to a game you play for fun? Or what about people driven to do better than they were yesterday? Some people aren't interested in competing with anyone but themselves. |
Quote:
So far, you haven't said anything that would convince me that my assumption was in error. You've all but stated directly that the fact that someone feels something in a game exists out of their comfort zone should not in any way deter a game designer from incorporating that feature. That's close enough for me.
|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
To be honest Arcana, I just didn't care to consider the question as deeply as you because the topic is another of Sam's BS rants against MMORPGs.
EDIT: BTW I was happy to be a passive observer of this thread, but I wanted to make my position known when someone (you?) assumed how I felt about the matter. |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Yes, the developers should create new content that is challenging and pushes players out of their "normal" methods of playing. If you don't push new and better content, many will get bored from doing the same thing over and over again. The biggest complaint about this game (rightly or wrongly) is that you "run out of things to do" too fast.
Fortunately, they almost never remove other content to make way for the new, so people who enjoy doing the same things over and over again can keep playing that way as well.
Global name: @k26dp
Quote:
If we're talking specifically about video games, then yes, it's a pretty easy statement to make. If you have sub-par reflexes then you will most likely suck at PvP in most games that use that label.|
Originally Posted by Slashman
Not much. But to say you suck at all PVP(across all games of all genres) is a rather difficult statement to accurately make. It would probably be more accurate to say you suck at the PVP games you've tried. That's not actually the same thing.
|
Quote:
| So there's no second or third place? That's interesting. There are winners and second and third places points awarded in many online multiplayer games. |
Quote:
| No doubt. But that doesn't mean they won't do what it takes to achieve their goals in said situation. |
Quote:
| My point is that competition or the drive to do better is part of human nature. It allows us to progress. |
Quote:
| Here's the other key thing. Getting together to play a few rounds of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory with friends, has never caused me any high levels of stress and quite the opposite has helped me to relax after a hard, long week at work. The only thing that truly attaches stress to a video game is the person sitting behind the keyboard and mouse. Because everything else takes place in your head. |
Quote:
| Not saying those people don't exist. I just question the number of them that actually do. It's something I suppose neither of us can prove conclusively. So it's probably worthless to argue about in the end. |
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:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Its like trying to make spicy food. If everyone complains its too hot to eat, its probably a failure as food. If not one complains its too hot to eat, its probably a failure at being spicy.
|
Or you could just be spending too much attention on the shouty customer who's never gonna be happy with what you dish up anyhow.
Thelonious Monk
Quote:
That's interesting. Reflexes don't have much to do with playing most RTS games. Your ability to plan and strategize do. (Starcraft and Starcraft 2 at the Korean Pro level may differ.)|
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
If we're talking specifically about video games, then yes, it's a pretty easy statement to make. If you have sub-par reflexes then you will most likely suck at PvP in most games that use that label.
|
A real world example of that is that when I play Command & Conquer: Generals against some of my friends who have far greater dexterity than I do, I still win because my overall strategy is better in terms of planning and using my resources.
In fact, that applies to a lot of games that people think are all about reflexes(not that those don't exist). Playing an engineer in Team Fortress 2 has practically nothing to do with reflexes and everything to do with knowing how and where to deploy your turrets, med stations and teleporters.
Quote:
| Even if there is a second or third place, someone will still be in last place. |
And still...it doesn't matter if everyone is having fun. Its a game...
Quote:
| The two are not necessarily intertwined. Competition only becomes a factor when you place a lot of importance on what other people are doing. Are you telling me that the guy who went from being completely inactive to doing a 10-mile run has accomplished nothing, because some other guy did the 10-mile run faster, and some other guy did a 20-mile run? |
If I set my mind on breaking the Guinness Book of World Records record of the most one-arm push-ups and it just so happens that my friend has the current record, should I feel bad that I'm trying to break it?
I mean if doing one-arm push-ups is something that I love and train for, how rational is it to not do it because maybe I'll do better than a real person?
Quote:
| Yeah, that's kind of the point of the thread. You find it relaxing, other people find it stressful. Should those people who find it stressful be pushed to do it, just because you find it relaxing? |
This has never been about pushing people to do PVP. I commented because I'm rather tired of hearing people flog PVP as if it was some sort of plague while not really getting what its all about.
Quote:
| It sounds to me like you might just be a competitive person yourself. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you realize not everybody shares your outlook. |
I enjoy some friendly competition yes. The point I'm making is that I like playing games period. And I find it nuts to not play a game that I like with friends because I might find myself up against them in a match. It just doesn't make sense to miss out on doing something I love because all of a sudden I may be trying to score points against *gasp* another human.
If a game is a bad game...fine I won't play it. If a game has all the elements I love in it and happens to be a PVP game...then it's not going to stop me from playing it..because I'll be enjoying the game for the love of the game.
Quote:
It isn't. Your example though, just proves my point, since trying to break a record is an inherently competitive goal. Who you're competing against is irrelevant; what matters is that you're measuring your accomplishment against other people's.|
Originally Posted by Slashman
If I set my mind on breaking the Guinness Book of World Records record of the most one-arm push-ups and it just so happens that my friend has the current record, should I feel bad that I'm trying to break it?
I mean if doing one-arm push-ups is something that I love and train for, how rational is it to not do it because maybe I'll do better than a real person? |
Quote:
| This has never been about pushing people to do PVP. I commented because I'm rather tired of hearing people flog PVP as if it was some sort of plague while not really getting what its all about. |
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:
Except that once you introduce PvP, it's not the same game anymore. The things I like about PvE -- being able to control the pace and difficulty of the game -- go out the window once you introduce human opponents.
|
Originally Posted by Slashman
The point I'm making is that I like playing games period. And I find it nuts to not play a game that I like with friends because I might find myself up against them in a match. It just doesn't make sense to miss out on doing something I love because all of a sudden I may be trying to score points against *gasp* another human.
|
99458: The Unbearable Being of Lightness
191775: How the Other Half Lives
My Webcomics
I didn't read the entire thread. A few comments of my own that are hopefully somewhat on topic and not too redundant.
Comfort zones are a hard to balance against game needs when groups of players have competing interests. Part of this is because what is included in "comfort zone" is not just the moment to moment gameplay, but the overall context of everything in the game.
For example, people who like to team do not just want to be able to team. They want problems to exist to which teaming is a practical solution. If there is nothing in the game for teams to fight then there is no reason to put up with the hassle of gathering eight people to overcome things. And if teammates do nothing but get in your way or can harm you in some way, there is active disincentive. I read once that in Diablo 2, over 60% of online games are played in single player mode, supposedly because in that game players are able to quit your team and attack you.
Evaluation of powersets are particular area where players tend to clash. Part of it comes from two competing camps of min/maxers: one that wants to identify the "best" sets in the game so they can play that and get the best mechanical leverage, and another that wants to prevent any set from being identified as the "best" because they would feel forced to play it over anything else. Balancing these competing factions is an art.
One of the weirder communities to emerge from the incarnate trials is the "level 54 enemies are unfair" group. While this viewpoint runs a gamut of specific opinions, a sub group of them essentially have vocalized a desire to run the same content teams do. That is, they want to be as powerful as a team of 8 (or 12, or 24, or whatever). The inherent problem should be obvious: if an individual character is as powerful as 24 individual characters, what happens when you put 24 individual characters as powerful as 24 individual characters together? If that question makes no sense, you followed it perfectly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Slashman
Its human nature to want to do better. Anyone can suppress it, sure. My point is that most of the time people aren't being honest about it and the true problem lies elsewhere.
|
Pardon my saying this, but IMO this is a very PVP-ish opinion of people who do not PVP. It does not capture for me the "real" reason people do not PVP.
I have been playing online video games for about 13 years. I am not being dishonest by saying that I truly do not enjoy PVP. PVP requires a very specific mindset about gameplay and power selections. It completely alters the game environment and in an unchecked environment turns the entire game into a paranoid session. I have seen such environments work well--for example in the text game Dragonrealms, where players can technically attack each other at any time, but can receive a warning from Game Masters if they attack each other without "consent" of the other party. That game also recently released a feature where players can sign up for an "assassination game" where one other unknown player is assigned your name at random and is allowed to ambush you at will. If that were the type of PVP this game had, I'd be more interested. Even as a non-PVPer I found the assassination game interesting, as PVPers maneuvered onto teams and into conversations in attempts to close in on their intended marks, while remaining wary that their name has also been assigned to someone who is trying to do the same thing. When an assassin does succeed, a global message is even displayed to all active players, giving the killer the attention many of them strive for.
In any case, I also feel you are missing a significant portion of what draws some players to PVP: a specific desire to act antisocially and humiliate a human opponent. I do not think this is true of all PVP players. Some of them really are in it for the "challenge." However, I can say with absolute authority that if this game, or any game, introduced a mechanic that allowed players to cause harm to each other in some way, that some players would use it even if the mechanics were exceptionally dull, simply because they enjoy causing other players distress. The more upset the mark gets, the better. I don't think such people are necessarily antisocial in their real lives, but I also have no interest in finding out.
Quote:
Bingo. I used the example of pvp because it's easily the thing that makes folks most uncomfortable. It's also the one thing that easy to define across multiple games. I don't care how you window dress it or put mini games around it, the established definition of pvp is what it is period.|
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
It isn't. Your example though, just proves my point, since trying to break a record is an inherently competitive goal. Who you're competing against is irrelevant; what matters is that you're measuring your accomplishment against other people's.
I'm only talking about PvP because someone else brought it up, it's a perfect example of a game aspect that makes some people uncomfortable, and you keep insisting that it shouldn't make people uncomfortable. You could just as easily use the example of PuGs or the market, and some advocates of those activities would probably chime in and claim that these activities are fun, relaxing, and they don't see why anyone would be opposed to participating in them. |
The second you are allowed to attack another player, that's a player vs player. Some folks DO NOT like it. I know this is hard for some folks to grasp, but some folks play games for relaxation and fun. Relaxation and fun to them is cooperating with others and not attacking them. Bashing the AI over and over again IS fun and relaxing for many people. THAT is THEIR comfort zone.
ANYTHING with pvp in it takes them out of their comfort zone.
On the flipside some folks play games to put themselves under stress or challenge themselves or compete against live thinking opponents. ANYTHING that doesn't involve that in games takes them out of THEIR comfort zone.
I don't know how much simpler that can be put, without someone misconstruing that as some silly blanket attack on pvp.
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!
Playing the market can also be viewed as PvP.
Not so much in CoX (probably due to the double blind bid system), but in other MMO's where you pay what you see...
There is *nothing* wrong with flipping items that were mistakenly put up for a cheap price, and then relisting it.
PvP... Player Vs Player
I have *always* viewed PvP to be not just "combat" orientated (although granted that *IS* considered to be the norm) but also ANYTHING where you have 2 players with opposing idea's meet.
Most people dont take the market thing to "PvP" levels, but those who agressively use it to get people to buy things that they price that the *LISTER* puts it at (either through market manipulation/just owning one whole subset by himself) generally manage to make the most money.
That is still PvP if you want to "play the market" just that the combat field has changed... and that it isnt (necessarily) physical.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
Bingo. I used the example of pvp because it's easily the thing that makes folks most uncomfortable. It's also the one thing that easy to define across multiple games. I don't care how you window dress it or put mini games around it, the established definition of pvp is what it is period.
The second you are allowed to attack another player, that's a player vs player. Some folks DO NOT like it. I know this is hard for some folks to grasp, but some folks play games for relaxation and fun. Relaxation and fun to them is cooperating with others and not attacking them. Bashing the AI over and over again IS fun and relaxing for many people. THAT is THEIR comfort zone. ANYTHING with pvp in it takes them out of their comfort zone. On the flipside some folks play games to put themselves under stress or challenge themselves or compete against live thinking opponents. ANYTHING that doesn't involve that in games takes them out of THEIR comfort zone. I don't know how much simpler that can be put, without someone misconstruing that as some silly blanket attack on pvp. |
I agree with your view. To bounce off this and maybe explain a bit better than I did in my previous statements, part of the issue with PVP for me personally is not only that someone might kill or harm me, but that I am expected to kill or harm other players. It is not just about fear of losing, it is also about what happens if I win?
Don't get me wrong. I like to win things. I am also no stranger to the mild conflicts that stem from arguing on the boards. But for me to win at PVP, someone has to lose. I don't feel any more comfortable putting people in that position than I'd like being there myself. Even players who frustrate me personally are not people I want to feel bad or be punished in some way. Some players aren't bothered by being killed, but some are. I never know who this person is or how my actions are effecting them. And if I do know, that makes it even more personal. This is why in however many years of video gaming my reaction to almost all PVP situations is to never make the first strike (a critically flawed strategy in a PVP environment), never chase people down with intent to kill if they run away from me, and if attacked myself, just try to run away.
I should also clarify that I don't mind PVP existing in the game. I don't want to do it, but I am always intrigued by the players who do. If there were a way for me to be a neutral spectator, I would probably go to PVP zones to watch the action. It's like sports in that way. I also support the CoX PVP community as a whole and wish PVP would get some attention to fix some of the major issues I13 brought about, even if it means I don't get some of the things I want. But the root of all that goes back to the concern about the welfare of other players and a general desire for them to have fun too.
Quote:
I know not the quoter but would like to ask none the less. Why do you feel bad when you lose? Why do you seem to take the game so personnal? Also I really like you idea about being able to go into pvp zones to spectate it may make more comfortable with it.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
I agree with your view. To bounce off this and maybe explain a bit better than I did in my previous statements, part of the issue with PVP for me personally is not only that someone might kill or harm me, but that I am expected to kill or harm other players. It is not just about fear of losing, it is also about what happens if I win?
Don't get me wrong. I like to win things. I am also no stranger to the mild conflicts that stem from arguing on the boards. But for me to win at PVP, someone has to lose. I don't feel any more comfortable putting people in that position than I'd like being there myself. Even players who frustrate me personally are not people I want to feel bad or be punished in some way. Some players aren't bothered by being killed, but some are. I never know who this person is or how my actions are effecting them. And if I do know, that makes it even more personal. This is why in however many years of video gaming my reaction to almost all PVP situations is to never make the first strike (a critically flawed strategy in a PVP environment), never chase people down with intent to kill if they run away from me, and if attacked myself, just try to run away. I should also clarify that I don't mind PVP existing in the game. I don't want to do it, but I am always intrigued by the players who do. If there were a way for me to be a neutral spectator, I would probably go to PVP zones to watch the action. It's like sports in that way. I also support the CoX PVP community as a whole and wish PVP would get some attention to fix some of the major issues I13 brought about, even if it means I don't get some of the things I want. But the root of all that goes back to the concern about the welfare of other players and a general desire for them to have fun too. |
On topic of the OP. Sure you hear horror stories of people going into zones for a first time announcing what their doing and then getting ganked over and over. It's a little like the school yard when you just moved and your on lunch break for the first time, well you don't run around screaming what your doing when no one even knows you bad things are probably gonna happen(wedgies or in game ganks etc lol). You gotta build yourself up a little meet a few friend.
So sure pvp may be a little uncomfortable at first but so are a lot of things in life I say embrace the uncomfortable and always be the first to mention any akward silence for it surely breaks that akward silence and uncomfortable moment the fastest.
Quote:
That bolded part of your statement is exactly what I have a problem with. You are 'killing' and 'harming' a computer-generated avatar rendered by a GPU which feels no pain and is an infinitely renewable resource.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
I agree with your view. To bounce off this and maybe explain a bit better than I did in my previous statements, part of the issue with PVP for me personally is not only that someone might kill or harm me, but that I am expected to kill or harm other players. It is not just about fear of losing, it is also about what happens if I win?
|
This is the part that makes me face palm. Its a game where no one can be physically hurt. You're not harming another player. Just like getting sent to the hospital by that Council boss didn't harm you.
Quote:
| Don't get me wrong. I like to win things. I am also no stranger to the mild conflicts that stem from arguing on the boards. But for me to win at PVP, someone has to lose. I don't feel any more comfortable putting people in that position than I'd like being there myself. Even players who frustrate me personally are not people I want to feel bad or be punished in some way. Some players aren't bothered by being killed, but some are. I never know who this person is or how my actions are effecting them. And if I do know, that makes it even more personal. This is why in however many years of video gaming my reaction to almost all PVP situations is to never make the first strike (a critically flawed strategy in a PVP environment), never chase people down with intent to kill if they run away from me, and if attacked myself, just try to run away. |
Quote:
| I should also clarify that I don't mind PVP existing in the game. I don't want to do it, but I am always intrigued by the players who do. If there were a way for me to be a neutral spectator, I would probably go to PVP zones to watch the action. It's like sports in that way. I also support the CoX PVP community as a whole and wish PVP would get some attention to fix some of the major issues I13 brought about, even if it means I don't get some of the things I want. But the root of all that goes back to the concern about the welfare of other players and a general desire for them to have fun too. |
As such I'm not a big fan of PVP in COX. It probably sounded like a grand idea when the developers thought of villains and heroes going head to head. It just never worked out all that well in practice. Hindsight and all that I guess.
Playing cooperatively makes my pretendy fun time game easier for me to accomplish the goal - whatever the mission or TF or zone event sets.
Playing PvP does not make accomplishing the goal - which is to beat the other guy - easier.
Slashman says:
Altoholic - but a Blaster at Heart!
Originally Posted by SpyralPegacyon
"You gave us a world where we could fly. I can't thank you enough for that."