My points here are not to antagonize, insult, or disparage any person here. They are simple observations of the nature of positions taken and that of the factual aspects of what a game is and how these differing views create conflict to what is expected with a games development, especially a game like this and its goals.
Games, Entertainment, and Fun
This a topic over the years to which I have really thought about in terms of what they are, and what they mean in this area of interest as well as how they effect a particular design goal or concept.
What is a game?
Well, if we refer to Merriam Webster, it is as follows:
(Note: I removed all references that are not exactly relevant to what we are seeking.)
Game
1a(1): activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY
2a: a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : TACTIC
3a(1): a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other
(2): a division of a larger contest
(3): the number of points necessary to win
(4): points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest
(5): the manner of playing in a contest
(6): the set of rules governing a game
Ok, so basically a game, for our purpose is essentially:
An activity comprised of a contest or challenge which a person(s) may compete against each other, themselves, or according to a specific system governed by rules in order to achieve a condition of victory or challenge completion.
This is a pretty straight forward definition of the objective term.
So what is entertainment?
Entertainment
3a : amusement or diversion provided especially by performers
hired a band to provide entertainment
b: something diverting or engaging: such as
(1) : a public performance
(2) : a usually light comic or adventure novel
So we have entertainment as:
An amusement or diversion that engages a particular person.
A very simple yet clear explanation of the subjective term.
How about Fun?
Fun
1 : what provides amusement or enjoyment
I think this one is extremely clear and requires no additional explanation other than to point out that fun is “subjective”.
So, we see game has a very specific meaning and a game is often played by people for the sake of entertainment (fun). A game is not entertainment itself, rather it is a specific thing to which some people may find entertaining. That is, some people find some games “fun” or “entertaining”, while others may not. It really comes down to the individual as to what may be perceived as “fun”.
I think these definitions are extremely important here as they help us to establish the difference between approaches in game development as well as why/how we may view a given mechanic in a game and how we communicate our individual subjective expectations.
This is where I start to separate the “game seeking” from the “entertainment seeking”.
A person who plays games specifically for entertainment, does so because of what a game is. That is, the objective definition of a game is clear, specific to conditions in what it provides. It is controlled, structured, and organized to a given purpose or goal. With this, such concepts as failure are a part of what a game is. Because a games purpose is to test, to challenge the player, it will have conditions that produce failures, difficulty and frustration.
Remember, a game is not fun, it is not entertainment itself, rather those are the reasons why “some” may choose to play a game. A person seeks the challenge of conditions that can produce a failure, difficulty and frustration as a test to achieving victory. The fun is not the failure or frustration, but the process of overcoming the obstacle. This is what a “game seeking” person is after.
The entertainment seeking however, are not concerned about what a game is specifically, rather they are seeking the end result of “entertainment” or rather “fun”. They may not care how a system is designed, or the intricacies of how it may effect over all game play, or even why a particular system achieves what it does. What they see is vary specific elements they subjectively evaluate as fun or not. Is this activity fun? Nope? Remove it. Is this result entertaining? Add more off it.
This approach to a games systems can have chaotic effects on its design and can conflict with the basic concept of what a game is. I think this is why many modern games today fail as games, but may be successful entertainment to some. For the game seeking, the object as defined is clear and comes with a very specific set of design constraints, but for the entertainment seeking, all that matters is that they are having fun, even when that fun may conflict with the basic concepts of what a game is designed to be.
This is where I see the biggest obstacle in many discussions concerning what is best in games these days. Some people view the game with suggestions about how many neat “fun” things that should be implemented to entertain people. Others view elements that are game play oriented, with objectives that contain obstacles to which can result in challenge, failure, and frustration. To those seeking entertainment, such concepts can be at an opposing view, after all… many consider failure and frustration as “not fun”, and therefore “not entertaining”.
The fact is, for the game seeking, while failure and frustration themselves are not particularly fun, it is their presence in the process to which makes the overall experience fun. That is, it is an activity comprised of a contest or challenge which a person(s) may compete against each other, themselves, or according to a specific system governed by rules in order to achieve a condition of victory or challenge completion that makes the game “fun”. Remove the “failure and frustration” parts and you make the “fun” for the game seeking go away. This is why many modern games do not appeal to those who seek a game by its definition as many modern games are centered around trying to provide fun and entertainment for everyone. For the game seeking, entertainment (ie amusement) is tied to the very definition of what a game is.
This puts people at odds with each other over what types of things should be implemented into a game and I think it is important for everyone to understand this when we enter these discussions, especially when it concerns putting in elements of play that some would deem “un-fun”. Remember what a game is, that it will not be “fun” or “entertaining” all the time, but that is not the definition of a game. Also remember “fun” and “entertainment” are subjective concepts, they can not be applied generally due to the individual differences and expectations that each person has.
So, when we have discussions and you see someone make the argument that a particular system is needed to balance out risk/reward, create challenge, or frustration in play, what they are saying is this is important game play, and integral to the purpose of playing a game. That means, something being fun or not is not the point, as fun comes from the game, not every individual element of play.
This is very well written.
The not so fun stuff can also play a part in immersion. It's quite funny how some people ask me why would I want something, like corpse runs, or things like that. They even have the audacity to think that I think corpse runs are fun. I never thought corpse runs were fun. I've gone through a lot of mmos with various penalties, like exp loss,gear loss, durability loss, or nothing at all etc. The only one that ever made me respect the enviroment was corpse runs. That's it. Even though it was a very tiny chance of your corpse rotting before you got your gear, that aspect alone made me respect the zones I was in, and respect death. I hated corpse runs. So I respected and engaged in the enviroment a lot more so I didn't die. I would remember spawn paths, and mobs that would destroy me for the sake of not dying. When going into a new zone, in any game that didn't have corpse runs, I wouldn't get that excitement and on edge type of experience as I did with corpse runs.
That is just one of the many aspects that people debate about that I don't think they understand. Most of the mechanics I like aren't because I enjoy them, but because it made me enjoy several other aspects of the world in a whole new light. Which is why I tell people to be careful of things you want to change that you don't like, because that mechanic that you don't like may play a part in other aspects of the game that you enjoy a lot.
Sorry but I think your summary of what a 'game' is, from some amalgamation or cherry picking of the multiple definitions, is flawed.
Only in the third definition is 'game' associated with 'competition' and even then, the term 'game' is used to identify a particular 'event', 'meeting' or 'fixture'. The word 'game' is being used to simply identify a segment of a larger whole. "This is the first game of the season".
When you then say "a game, for our purpose is essentially: An activity comprised of a contest or challenge" I almost wholly disagree.
To *some* people, it seems without some element of competition there is no point to the 'game'. To an even smaller subset the competition is the only thing worthwhile in a 'game'. I understand that, but...
To most, in my experience and opinion, a 'game' fundamentally is about enjoying achieving objectives by enacting strategems within a set of rules. A game can be a fun challenge without any competition whatsoever. You don't even need an opponent in lots of games. In others, even though you 'beat' your opponent, the fun is found in the playing at least as much as any 'victory' or 'loss'.
To most, when things start to get 'competitive' is when the game begins to stop being primarily 'fun' and starts being something else. When things start to feel like a professional sport is when most players give it up.
"a pretty straight forward definition of the objective term"? Sorry, no.
It's the sort of thing that leads to a real polarizing that is unhealthy. We don't have to be "care bears" or "sweaty killers". Games *are* often fun with an *element* of competition, but it's not the whole point or even essential.
disposalist said:Sorry but I think your summary of what a 'game' is, from some amalgamation or cherry picking of the multiple definitions, is flawed.
Only in the third definition is 'game' associated with 'competition' and even then, the term 'game' is used to identify a particular 'event', 'meeting' or 'fixture'. The word 'game' is being used to simply identify a segment of a larger whole. "This is the first game of the season".
When you then say "a game, for our purpose is essentially: An activity comprised of a contest or challenge" I almost wholly disagree.
To *some* people, it seems without some element of competition there is no point to the 'game'. To an even smaller subset the competition is the only thing worthwhile in a 'game'. I understand that, but...
To most, in my experience and opinion, a 'game' fundamentally is about enjoying achieving objectives by enacting strategems within a set of rules. A game can be a fun challenge without any competition whatsoever. You don't even need an opponent in lots of games. In others, even though you 'beat' your opponent, the fun is found in the playing at least as much as any 'victory' or 'loss'.
To most, when things start to get 'competitive' is when the game begins to stop being primarily 'fun' and starts being something else. When things start to feel like a professional sport is when most players give it up.
"a pretty straight forward definition of the objective term"? Sorry, no.
It's the sort of thing that leads to a real polarizing that is unhealthy. We don't have to be "care bears" or "sweaty killers". Games *are* often fun with an *element* of competition, but it's not the whole point or even essential.
Tanix said:
An activity comprised of a contest or challenge which a person(s) may compete against each other, themselves, or according to a specific system governed by rules in order to achieve a condition of victory or challenge completion.
The " themselves, or according to a specific system " implies competing against a machine, a requirement, or standard (ie a solo player competes against the games mechanics to achieve a condition of victory).
So I think your disagreement was based on a misunderstanding, am I correct?
let me make sure i understand this tanix. what you are saying is the act of participating is a game is about some type of challenge, however, not entertainment(observing) or fun(subjective). in games there must be consequences? i'm assuming this is what you mean? if so i agree. bad decision making in chess leads to a net loss. then does it becoming entertaining if anyone can make a choice without an reprecussions?
I yearn for the day when someone makes a post on this topic without talking down to folk about how they just need to suffer more and then they'll learn to truly appreciate your chosen ideal for particular game mechanics. When people can accept that other people can get just as much fulfillment out of a game without being constantly and harshly punished as those who need to experience that constant, harsh punishment... Then we'll get somewhere.
@naunet people play certain games for different reasons. why does a person go to the gym? it sucks. you get sweaty. you smell bad. it hurts. does that mean it should be illegal to work out? it's just a different perspective. most serious body builders eat bland food and it's really boring. from what i read is that tanix is just competitive. you also have to consider that it is an mmo. you going to get a wide range of people interacting and what they want will differ from what you may want.
i appreciate the straightforwardness @tanix not that i agree with everything you say.
stellarmind said:let me make sure i understand this tanix. what you are saying is the act of participating is a game is about some type of challenge, however, not entertainment(observing) or fun(subjective). in games there must be consequences? i'm assuming this is what you mean? if so i agree. bad decision making in chess leads to a net loss. then does it becoming entertaining if anyone can make a choice without an reprecussions?
A game is not fun or entertainment, that is not its definition. As you can see, even the number one definition of game is:
activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
That is, people play games FOR entertainment/fun, but a game is not entertainment/fun itself.
To clarify, some games aren't about entertainment at all, some are battle games to condition and ready soldiers. Some games are to test and measure ablities.
So the definition of a game is not "entertainment" or "fun", that is merely what "some" people play a game for, because they enjoy the structure of what a game is.
A game is as I stated in my summary of its definition. Now some enjoy that concept. Some like to compete against others, some like to compete agains themselves to better a time, or meet a certain condition, others like to compete against a system to which a level of standard has to be met.
See the trend there? Each concept of a game is an obstacle, a means to which a person competes to overcome the objective according to a set of rules. This basic structure implies failure is a possible (even likely if the game is challenging enough), which also may result in frustration for some in their attempt to succeed in the objectives.
That is a game, some like this, some do not due to the failure/loss issue.
Many modern designs attempt to remedy the frustration of some people by trying to limit the failures/loss and associated frustrations by providing options to avoid such failures. In such, some people are entertained, because playing a game (the process of challenge, loss, even frustration) is not something they were looking for, they just wanted the basic result of being entertained, amused, etc... because the result is fun to them, not the concept of a game.
My point there is this drastically drives the expectations of what a game should have. It is why some will say that a penalty or other consequence is "not fun" because it is too much of a game, and not enough of basic entertaining activity. The focus is different between the two.
Naunet said:I yearn for the day when someone makes a post on this topic without talking down to folk about how they just need to suffer more and then they'll learn to truly appreciate your chosen ideal for particular game mechanics. When people can accept that other people can get just as much fulfillment out of a game without being constantly and harshly punished as those who need to experience that constant, harsh punishment... Then we'll get somewhere.
Am I talking down to you?
Could you be more specific? Where in my response am I stating anything other than a fact? Is the definition of a game incorrect?
See, I think you are missing the point here. We are all not the same. We do not all like the same things. Because of this, it is important to classify what we are seeking. A game is a very specific definition, it serves a very specific concept of existence. As I said, a game can be entertaining for some, but not all. So if someone merely wants to be entertained and another wants a game (by its defintion), then their needs will different and there will be a conflict.
Let us say you would like to not be so focused on rules, objectives, and various other metrics that control success in the game. You merely want to have fun and you see a lot of these rules and the natural failure/consequence of these systems as taxing, harmful to your enjoyment.
Now lets say that I want to play a game, I enjoy what a game is, its structure and design, the competition with the system, the consequence of failure, etc.. when I do not meet the rules and goals set by the game. What if that is the entire reason I play a game and to make the rules of little value, making consequence and failure meaningless, I find the game to not be "fun".
Do you see the problem?
I am not talking down to you, I am merely pointing out we have differences and this is why there is constant conflict in the discussions about gaming. We have different goals and expectations and this can at times be at complete odds, where if you get what you want, I will not like the game, it will be no fun, and if I get what I want, you also will not like the game, it will not be fun.
Does that make sense?
stellarmind said: you going to get a wide range of people interacting and what they want will differ from what you may want.
That was literally my point. I am just tired of people acting as though they knew the One Way to "truly" enjoying a video game, and that we would become just as enlightened as them if we just suffered more.
Naunet said:stellarmind said: you going to get a wide range of people interacting and what they want will differ from what you may want.
That was literally my point. I am just tired of people acting as though they knew the One Way to "truly" enjoying a video game, and that we would become just as enlightened as them if we just suffered more.
Problem is, you can't appeal to everyone. In many cases to cater to one side or the other will result in one side getting the short end of the stick. This is why this game exists, and why people like me have been getting the short end of the stick with modern games. They are designed for entertainment, for fun, but since it is subjective the result usually ends with a "lowest common denominator" approach to the developement causing most people to be unhappy.
Pantheon can not succeed in its mission statement if it caters to everyone. They have to decide or the game will suffer for it.
I would like my MMORPG to be a virtual world that I share with fellow humans. I could go to the local bar after work a few hours and socialize. But I would rather login to my virtual world and socialize there. Do some crafting, help a friend or have a conversation. Entertainment...
I practice internal martial arts - Qigong forms - standing meditations the cultivation and manipulation of Qi energy. 900 kicks on saturday with my brothers. Practiced Splashing hands and Hsing-I It's actually it's alot fun - But I do get enjoyment from doing something that is challenging. There is pain, your tired, but the next day I feel sore, but feel great. I nudge my skills everyday and level up just a little bit. Satisfaction through self improvement. There is a game, refine your martial skill... level up in real life. (skilled in martial system, gaining health and increasing my Qi energy) This is 100 times better than a treadmill or Elliptical machine or lifting weights all day. Which I consider a time sink.
Tanix said:Pantheon can not succeed in its mission statement if it caters to everyone. They have to decide or the game will suffer for it.
This I can agree with and I think it is a trap that a lot of modern games fall into.
I am not sure I agree with your idea of games. The problem is, the game is a tool to achieve fun (if I get the gist of what you are saying) the game is not fun in and of itself. The thing about it is the motive for engaging in the game in the first place. The idea of competition and achievement can be applied to many things, like work. Can work be fun? Sure if you are lucky enough to have a job like that I guess.
The motive I have for playing this game is entertainment and fun. If I play the game and don't like it (don't have fun) I will stop playing. So those inner workings are the deciding factor for the game for me, do they make the game overall a fun experience? If yes then keep playing, if no then stop and uninstall.
I just don't think it is as black and white as you make out. Now I agree with your sentiment on respecting other people's playstyles, even if it doesn't suit your own. People like varying levels of challenge, I myself am hoping this game is very challenging, corpse runs, long travel times, etc. that can be thought of as not fun activities, but add to the overall challenge of the game which can lead to an entertaining and fun experience for me. I just question if such a game can sustain itself in todays market.
Tanix said:Naunet said:Problem is, you can't appeal to everyone. In many cases to cater to one side or the other will result in one side getting the short end of the stick. This is why this game exists, and why people like me have been getting the short end of the stick with modern games. They are designed for entertainment, for fun, but since it is subjective the result usually ends with a "lowest common denominator" approach to the developement causing most people to be unhappy.
Pantheon can not succeed in its mission statement if it caters to everyone. They have to decide or the game will suffer for it.
True. Hopefully VR-Devs already decided. Tired of waiting around beta after beta, launch after launch, for a good MMORPG. But I find it hard to debate one system over another, one mechanic over another.
So I am never set in complete stone on a single issue. If I going to judge it, I want to judge it on it's whole. Noone gets everything they want.
This post was edited by Zevlin at February 18, 2019 11:40 AM PST
Caine, nm...
I completely misread your response. My bad.
@naunet most of the people on the pantheon forums are very experienced and intelligent. we've walked different paths in mmos and express ourselves in different manners. it's very difficult to be civil when social conditioning on a macro level has been fused with instant gratification. i definitely understand where you are coming from. mmo elite raiders usually look down on pvpers, but for the few that are willing to sift through pvpers, they are pleasantly surprised at how adaptable we are.
guess i've seen enough of tanix post to realize he's not pompous and it's just the way to translates his thoughts in a objective manner >.> like straight liquor. dry and on the rocks. errghhl. can be combustible only if you bring fire to it.
While I appreciate the sentiment in this thread, I also can't help but feel like some people may try to use it to justify their positions on different elements of Pantheon. The subtext inherent in "you can't make the game to please everyone" is "that means they're going to make the game to please me, sorry".
I don't think that's right, or fair. Whichever side of an argument we all happen to be on, we need to recognize that everyone has valid points. Respecting the other person in a debate about game design isn't a matter of saying "sorry, I don't think they'll give you what you want". It's a matter of trying to understand where that other person's position comes from, and trying to find a way to meet them in the middle somehow.
Most of the big debates we have around here come down to fear. People are afraid that if the game is built in a certain way it's going to cause or contribute to player behaviors that will harm their enjoyment of the final product. They are afraid of this because of other past games they've played where their enjoyment *was* harmed by the unintended consequences of a design - whether that was having their camp stolen, or a toxic and elitest community, or them feeling alone in a world that seemed empty most of the time, or seeing content that they love become abandoned and "worthless" in the eyes of players, or any other negative experience you care to name. Everyone is afraid that will happen in Pantheon, and that's why they take the positions that they do.
The lesson we should be learning from it is not that one side or the other is wrong, but that the right answer is always, *always* in the middle somewhere. If we want our discussions to be productive we should focus on finding the middle ground, not on defending our positions or shouting down the other side.
We're all here for the same reasons: We want a world that has depth and challenge, where our choices and accomplishments feel meaningful, and where we don't feel like we're on a guided tour in someone else's experience. No single one of us can possibly have a vision that encompasses everything that Pantheon needs to be for its players. But all of us together just might.
Walpurgis said:Tanix said:Pantheon can not succeed in its mission statement if it caters to everyone. They have to decide or the game will suffer for it.
This I can agree with and I think it is a trap that a lot of modern games fall into.
I am not sure I agree with your idea of games. The problem is, the game is a tool to achieve fun (if I get the gist of what you are saying) the game is not fun in and of itself. The thing about it is the motive for engaging in the game in the first place. The idea of competition and achievement can be applied to many things, like work. Can work be fun? Sure if you are lucky enough to have a job like that I guess.
The motive I have for playing this game is entertainment and fun. If I play the game and don't like it (don't have fun) I will stop playing. So those inner workings are the deciding factor for the game for me, do they make the game overall a fun experience? If yes then keep playing, if no then stop and uninstall.
I just don't think it is as black and white as you make out. Now I agree with your sentiment on respecting other people's playstyles, even if it doesn't suit your own. People like varying levels of challenge, I myself am hoping this game is very challenging, corpse runs, long travel times, etc. that can be thought of as not fun activities, but add to the overall challenge of the game which can lead to an entertaining and fun experience for me. I just question if such a game can sustain itself in todays market.
Well, like I said fun/entertainment is something that results, it isn't something that is. Anything can result in fun for some. Watching a movie, reading a book, etc... but they aren't games, though they are most certainly entertainment.
To answer your question, yes... I think it can.
Look at dark souls. This was a mainstream game that was hailed as a 2nd coming in gaming, but you know what? It was nothing more than an arcade game. Sure, it was packaged differently, but it was no different in the concept as that of playing an old arcade game. It was patter recogniztion and memorization combined with reflex, nothing more. A VERYn old concept repackaged to fool a new generation.
This is no different. People say they want easy, but if you look back through the games people salivated over, they were games that challenged them, did not give them easy hand outs and had a proper balance of risk/reward.
VR doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, they don't need to cater to modern designs as such. They need to hold to their vision and people who claim they hate it will play it anyway and if they won't this is all a waste of time. I don't think people are too much different than they were back then, they just haven't been given the oppurtunity to experience a system as such (even P1999 isnt really old EQ). Those who want a game, will play, those seeking entertainment, well... it depends. Remmeber though, before WoW, most of the people playing MMOs were gamers, not people just seeking entertainment. I think there is plenty of a market, more so these days for a game like this.
Nephele said:While I appreciate the sentiment in this thread, I also can't help but feel like some people may try to use it to justify their positions on different elements of Pantheon. The subtext inherent in "you can't make the game to please everyone" is "that means they're going to make the game to please me, sorry".
I don't think that's right, or fair. Whichever side of an argument we all happen to be on, we need to recognize that everyone has valid points. Respecting the other person in a debate about game design isn't a matter of saying "sorry, I don't think they'll give you what you want". It's a matter of trying to understand where that other person's position comes from, and trying to find a way to meet them in the middle somehow.
Most of the big debates we have around here come down to fear. People are afraid that if the game is built in a certain way it's going to cause or contribute to player behaviors that will harm their enjoyment of the final product. They are afraid of this because of other past games they've played where their enjoyment *was* harmed by the unintended consequences of a design - whether that was having their camp stolen, or a toxic and elitest community, or them feeling alone in a world that seemed empty most of the time, or seeing content that they love become abandoned and "worthless" in the eyes of players, or any other negative experience you care to name. Everyone is afraid that will happen in Pantheon, and that's why they take the positions that they do.
The lesson we should be learning from it is not that one side or the other is wrong, but that the right answer is always, *always* in the middle somewhere. If we want our discussions to be productive we should focus on finding the middle ground, not on defending our positions or shouting down the other side.
We're all here for the same reasons: We want a world that has depth and challenge, where our choices and accomplishments feel meaningful, and where we don't feel like we're on a guided tour in someone else's experience. No single one of us can possibly have a vision that encompasses everything that Pantheon needs to be for its players. But all of us together just might.
Nope, that is not what I saying at all.