can't change tanix 80 proof whiskey. dry and flammable. thank you for the clarification IPA 187.
i'll just define what i found productive:
VR should create a game based on action and reaction. similar to chess if you make bad moves you should pay for it (corpse run, exp loss). from an 'entertainment and fun' point of view these should not exist, but from a game point of view they must exist.
then again all this is invalid. brad has state he's not making a game.
i'm sorry to burst everyones bubble here. senpai mcquaid is making a world. all your base belongs to us.
Tanix said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Nimryl said:Tanix said:Doford said:Are you free to believe what you want or are your beliefs predetermined? Is that what this is about?
Nope.
It is about some people disliking what words mean because it conflicts with their expectations and so rather than accepting such and using words properly, they merely adjust meanings to fit their narrative.
It is denial taken to levels of insanity.
Someone having an opinion or a different perspective on said words doesn't make them insane. Everyone took everything litterally (like a robot) it'd be a very harsh and dangerous world.
You are entitled to your own opinoins, not your own facts. Thinking you can have an opinon in the face of a fact IS insane.
Starting a thread and make a statement of fact without any point in discussion is also insane-- what's the point?There is discusion. The point of the discussion was to note the differences between the expectations in play and through that maybe have a better understanding as to why people make the arguments they do.
You don't think that useful?
So, what is important about someone who wants entertainment and someone who wants a game? Do you see some of the conflict at times?
The person wanting to be entertained often will view key elements in a game (ie failure, penalties, difficulty, etc...) as not very entertaining, but those who love games understand these are integral aspects of play (ie why games are often entertaining).
So tell me, after understanding this, how can this help in the various discussions we have concerning this... game?
Looking at the Game Tenets page, I'm of the opinion that the substance of this thread is most closely tied to the following:
- An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding.
- An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
- An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
- A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds.
- A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.
- A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
What Tanix is suggesting the whole way through (regardless of whether he phrases something specifically as 'I think' or 'it is so'), is that people who don't want features and mechanics such as corpse runs, significant XP loss on death, significant downtime inbetween the action, significant travel time to get from A to B, inability to tackle level appropriate content without the help of other players, inability to use global auction houses to sell stuff with no effort, quest 'rewards' that take things away from you because you made a bad decision, etc. are people who are coming into Pantheon expecting the world to provide for them and be entertained with no real investment. This is a problem in modern MMO's that try to cater to everyone, thus watering down elements that are crucial to keep a game challening simply because they are not fun or even aggravating to experience.
He argues that the casual gamer that wants all or most of the obstacles on the path to glory to only be minor bumps in the road at worst is not really a gamer, but someone who's along for the ride to get some entertainment with little effort. While a true (hardcore) gamer wants to have setbacks so there's a challenge to overcome, and accomplishments to feel good about. The tenets listed above give a very clear impression that Pantheon is supposed to appeal to hardcore gamers, which means that un-fun experiences are meant to be largely unavoidable if you want to get anywhere within the game. How anyone's lives and responsibilities have changed over the years shouldn't really be relevant. You can still approach a game with a hardcore mentality even if you don't have a lot of free time to play it.
Kaeldorn said:Looking at the Game Tenets page, I'm of the opinion that the substance of this thread is most closely tied to the following:
- An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding.
- An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
- An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
- A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds.
- A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.
- A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
What Tanix is suggesting the whole way through (regardless of whether he phrases something specifically as 'I think' or 'it is so'), is that people who don't want features and mechanics such as corpse runs, significant XP loss on death, significant downtime inbetween the action, significant travel time to get from A to B, inability to tackle level appropriate content without the help of other players, inability to use global auction houses to sell stuff with no effort, quest 'rewards' that take things away from you because you made a bad decision, etc. are people who are coming into Pantheon expecting the world to provide for them and be entertained with no real investment. This is a problem in modern MMO's that try to cater to everyone, thus watering down elements that are crucial to keep a game challening simply because they are not fun or even aggravating to experience.
He argues that the casual gamer that wants all or most of the obstacles on the path to glory to only be minor bumps in the road at worst is not really a gamer, but someone who's along for the ride to get some entertainment with little effort. While a true (hardcore) gamer wants to have setbacks so there's a challenge to overcome, and accomplishments to feel good about. The tenets listed above give a very clear impression that Pantheon is supposed to appeal to hardcore gamers, which means that un-fun experiences are meant to be largely unavoidable if you want to get anywhere within the game. How anyone's lives and responsibilities have changed over the years shouldn't really be relevant. You can still approach a game with a hardcore mentality even if you don't have a lot of free time to play it.
stellarmind said:can't change tanix 80 proof whiskey. dry and flammable. thank you for the clarification IPA 187.
i'll just define what i found productive:
VR should create a game based on action and reaction. similar to chess if you make bad moves you should pay for it (corpse run, exp loss). from an 'entertainment and fun' point of view these should not exist, but from a game point of view they must exist.
then again all this is invalid. brad has state he's not making a game.
i'm sorry to burst everyones bubble here. senpai mcquaid is making a world. all your base belongs to us.
These are fairly approximate summaries of my point (not exact, but certainly close enough to place in a like catagory).
That will teach me to double click too fast! (double post).
Nimryl said:
Yes I do see the conflict but I don't think this is useful. I've seen it for along time.. altho never laid out in this way. It's usually some type of "casual" (entertained) vs "hardcore" (game) discussion. But this isn't going to contribute anything and it isn't going to fix anything because people are people; we all have opinions, we all have perspectives. It's not insanity; it's human nature. "conflicts"/arguments will always be so long as someone else is brought up different to one another and in-part there genetics too but that's just life. Even twins have different opinions and expectations when going to and playing a game. There is no way of resolving it. Also to add: people also want "self wants/wishes" in a game and will argue points across to others and the devs just to see the game changed. (hence what I was talking about earlier with the dev listening part). If developers believe that the majority of there playerbase wants to be just "entertained"; then that's what they'll do for more cash. They won't stick to "the vision" they had; they'll just cater for money.. (and that's what I was talking about earlier). Hence why people will argue longer and harder in some discussions; because they think the devs are listening.
Well, for every position, there is a legitimate truth to it. In what you mentioned (casual vs hardcore), that is more of a "trend" argument. The reason I say is that casual and hardcore have entirely differnt meanings back when EQ was released. So I understand the idiomatic means of language, how meanings change, but to claim such in the discussion of what I was describing is absurd and insane. Arguing with a dictionary in ther terms of calling it subjective is insanity.
That said, the point was to show a very distinct difference in expecations of play. You can ignore it, but it exists as this ENTIRE game is designed around that concept of a difference, or lacking of play in modern games.
So, when people come in and argue for modern game features, ignorant of this fact, it makes it difficult to come to an understanding.
My point was to not to rattle off chants of "East side" vs "West side", but to maybe delve into why one side disagrees with another.
In that evaluation, there are problems with the balance of expectations as I explained. I wanted to point this out so both sides might see why we have conflict and if not come an agreement (which to be honest I think is unlikely due to the nature of the conflict), but at the least respect WHY each side has their position.
I completely understand the desire, the need, the approach to "entertainment" designed play. I respect those who seek it, but... I know it is not compatible with those who seek game play for the most part (being that entertainment is subjective, there are times that "some" will find certain game play elements entertaining and so will agree with those who love games on that specific point). See, I can play a game, I may not like that specific style, but because I enjoy games, I can appreciate and even enjoy most game play.
A person who merely wants to be entertained is less objective in their assessment. Whether they like a game is ENTIRELY subjective and dependent on thier personal acceptance of a component of play.
Point is, there are major differences, focuses, and why we have HUGE arguments over directions of development.
Understanding this difference can go a long way to at least, if we never agree, UNDERSTAND why we do not.
stellarmind said:@nimryl i understand you have an issue with the way tanix presents things. i'm personally not a fan of it, but you are missing the point.
I think a lot of us are missing the point unless the entire point is: "Here is my opinion on how the game should be, presented and pushed as though it were fact."
Now we're talking, Kaeldorn. At the same time, there is still plenty of room for interpretation there. I'd like to hear specific examples of a planned game feature that either reinforces or contradicts those tenets. I consider myself a hardcore gamer and view the tenets as sacred for all things Pantheon. My fun and entertainment, as related to Pantheon, are completely dependent on the game tenets being fully realized. Again ... if we're going to debate what "this type of game" means then we need to be specific. We also need to understand that Pantheon is just as flexible as it is rigid. The name of the game is "compromise" in many respects. I have come to this conclusion based on the following FAQ excerpt:
Pantheon is most definitely a modern MMO with modern graphics and new and exciting features and mechanics. There are already emulators out there that are clones of earlier MMOs and Visionary Realms has no desire to make another emulator. That said, we also feel that many of the features and mechanics of previous MMOs have been abandoned in more recent games, resulting in a less challenging, compelling, deep, and social experience. Pantheon, therefore, will indeed bring back some of these conventional mechanics and ideas but with a fresh perspective, some tweaks and revisions. We also understand that while gamers’ tastes don’t fundamentally change over time, their situations, lives, and responsibilities do. Likewise, some game mechanics often associated with earlier MMOs involved inordinate amounts of downtime, overly severe penalties, too much competition over content and resources, and even downright boring or overly repetitive gameplay. Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days, but rather to pick and choose those which make sense and are needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game.
I don't think it's fair to assume that certain gameplay features from Everquest should automatically be seen as part of the "default" Pantheon experience. VR has specifically mentioned that they are applying a fresh perspective with tweaks and revisions. This is where it is up to us as players to try and have meaningful dialogue with each other and try to find common ground. I say this loosely because it's ultimately up to VR, but they have suggested that player feedback is critical and that they are willing to "yank" certain things from the game if they don't end up panning out. We aren't getting an emulator. There will be changes and revisions. In my opinion ... something has to pass the eye test of that section I highlighted. If we're talking about "bringing something back" then it must be needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game. It doesn't even necessarily have to accomplish all 4. I would even go so far as to remove the "needed" distinction and settle with the idea that as long as it compliments those things, I'm happy. But if it isn't accomplishing any of that then it's automatically suspect in my eyes.
One of the issues I can already see with this, though, is that "fun" is the first word used. As we all know ... fun is subjective. I don't think zerging is fun. I think zerging violates more than half of the game tenets. It definitely doesn't contribute toward making the game more challenging (it does the opposite, IMO, which is clearly subjective) -- social/cooperative? Maybe, I guess I can see that ... but only from a quantity perspective, at the expense of quality. So here is the conflict that I find myself contemplating. How can it ever be justified that zerging should be "brought back" to Pantheon? I think it goes against the "vision" of the game, as it's described in the game tenets. Is it possible to find common ground here? Is my opinion irrelevant? Is zerging intrinsically tied to some sort of fact about what kind of game Pantheon is, or is supposed to be? Brad has stated multiple times that he doesn't want players zerging content in Pantheon and at one point went so far to say that it quite simply and literally would not be possible. And therein lies the crux of this issue. I have found myself citing those same tenets ... the same vision, but have been told quite authoritatively that my position is wrong.
The next topic I would bring up is encounter locking. Is it needed for this game? I think it's supported by the game tenets. It was present in Vanguard and helped facilitate a more fun, social, cooperative and challenging experience. (IMO, again acknowledging that this is subjective) -- I would even go so far as to say that it is indeed a planned mechanic in Pantheon. Brad has suggested that they plan on utilizing an evolved version of the AES (Advanced Encounter System) from Vanguard which would lock certain encounters to a specific group. He also suggested that there would be a lot of mobs that don't fall under the scope of the AES that would be considered FFA. I have done my research. I place as much value on the tenets as the next guy. I feel like I have taken a very reasonable approach to how I am managing my expectations for this game. When it comes to the death penalty, I find myself in a position where the ideal death penalty, for me, would be a compromise that was specifically mentioned as an option that was being considered. That compromise is one that would maintain "corpses" in the game, but rather than attaching our loot to them, it would be a chunk of XP.
Anyway ... I don't want to go off the rails here. In my experience ... you're always going to find people who disagree with you. It doesn't matter if you back up a theory based on logic, evidence, precedent, or related facts. Some people are going to disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing with you. Some (most?) people are going to fabricate their own vision of what kind of game Pantheon is meant to be and because of how passionate they are about their thoughts and beliefs, that vision will often supercede reality. Trust me, I know a thing or twelve about that. It's better that people are willing to argue for what they believe in rather than retire to complacency. Arguments aren't an inherently bad thing. It shows interest. It shows conviction. Most of us are jaded or disillusioned based on our own personal experiences and while we make a legitimate effort to use logic to substantiate our position, it's usually fueled by instinct or emotion. That's just human nature and it might sound crazy, but that human element is what has been missing from MMO's. In the end, I think it's really important to be considerate of eachother and at the very least attempt to be empathetic to those who take the time to engage us. #CommunityMatters #ChallengeReborn #BestOfBothWorlds #TrustInPantheon
I guess I missed the point. :S - I guess I'm too dumb to understand.
Syrif said:@Nimryl I don’t think it was ever about ‘resolving it.’ We all know the game style that Pantheon will be. It will be pretty opposite to WoW and ff, as devs have said. The good thing is people will have a choice in what game they will like to play ;)
When has VR ever suggested that Pantheon is going to be the opposite of FF? You realize that the vast majority of former FFXI players following Pantheon are doing so because of the similarities that have been described in the game tenets, right? You keep misrepresenting FFXI as if it's somehow synonymous with WoW. I have offered to help catch you up to speed on what kind of game FFXI truly was but you refused. You like to suggest that community matters all the time but won't spend any effort trying to understand why the former FFXI players in the same community as you might be just as, if not more, interested in Pantheon as you are. These type of comments only serve to drive wedges in the community rather than bring anybody together. At least start using #EverquestRemake so I can start taking you half-serious. (I would give you half credit because the game would still be very similar to FFXI.) Check out the comments from this recent Pantheon Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4dOgP1ojY&t
Iksar said:stellarmind said:@nimryl i understand you have an issue with the way tanix presents things. i'm personally not a fan of it, but you are missing the point.
I think a lot of us are missing the point unless the entire point is: "Here is my opinion on how the game should be, presented and pushed as though it were fact."
the first part is correct from what i get. the 2nd part isn't much so. the OP is using definitions as a guideline. a game isn't a game unless you have rules and regulations, rewards and consequences. is it fun if you have consequences? most would say no. is it entertaining? subjective. should a game be designed from a fun and entertainment perspective? definitely not for mmos.
do you tell an artist what to paint? only if you are paying the artist to paint something.
in this case the artist has no publisher so he doesn't have to cater to 'entertainment' or 'fun'
then again this is all very subjective even though we have the intent to be objective.
Iksar said:stellarmind said:@nimryl i understand you have an issue with the way tanix presents things. i'm personally not a fan of it, but you are missing the point.
I think a lot of us are missing the point unless the entire point is: "Here is my opinion on how the game should be, presented and pushed as though it were fact."
Well, if emotion is what drives you, then there is no suprise you missed the point.
I know you don't like me, you have stated all but such. I am not going to massage your ego, treat you as special or play patty cake with you verbally. I speak my mind, I am very objective and analytical in discussion, but I am honest and will respect a valid point according to logical means (if your position is that emotion trumps logic, so you are still valid, you will get no respect) if you honestly present it.
Past that, I don't care about feelings, emotions, the socially inept, or illogically derived. I won't cater to poor arguments, respect an invalid one as a matter of humility.
That is, if you say something stupid I am going to point it out, I won't just claim it, I will PROVE it, and if that upsets you, then you lack the most basic form of social interaction and I can PROMISE you this is DEFINTELY not the game for you.
That said, unload on me all you like, insults I don't get upset at, I am thick skinned, but be careful... if you approach agressively with a fallacy or invalid argument, I will roast you alive and make you "feel" (using logic), like you are the most insignificant thing in the world.
If you are honest, non-agresive, even if we have COMPLETE disagreements, there will be nothing but discourse and I promise you, eventual understanding between positions.
Syrif said:oneADseven said:#CommunityMatters #ChallengeReborn #BestOfBothWorlds #TrustInPantheon
Great hashtags, except for ‘bestofbothworlds.’ Pantheon will be Pantheon. Brought to us by the makers of EQ and VG. Pantheon onward. :)
I was referencing both EQ and VG, though the application of "Worlds" wasn't literal in that sense.
oneADseven said:Syrif said:oneADseven said:#CommunityMatters #ChallengeReborn #BestOfBothWorlds #TrustInPantheon
Great hashtags, except for ‘bestofbothworlds.’ Pantheon will be Pantheon. Brought to us by the makers of EQ and VG. Pantheon onward. :)
I was referencing both EQ and VG, though the application of "Worlds" wasn't literal in that sense.
i see what you did there XD
Syrif said:oneADseven said:#CommunityMatters #ChallengeReborn #BestOfBothWorlds #TrustInPantheon
Great hashtags, except for ‘bestofbothworlds.’ Pantheon will be Pantheon. Brought to us by the makers of EQ and VG. Pantheon onward. :)
Off topic, but.. the concept of Hashtags are brillant, properly used, they are means to catagorize information for intelligent retrevial. Though, as you just pointed out, they have been relegated to a meaningless concept due to their misuse. Using hashtags these days to do site searches is a pointless excercise in informtation retrival.
oneADseven said:I have offered to help catch you up to speed on what kind of game FFXI truly was but you refused.
No worries. I ’get’ the WoW and ff nostalgia. I just think they were always terrible games imo. Just had no interest, even at vanilla. As for why I am here, I enjoyed Brad’s games: EQ and VG (mind you they weren’t so called clones of each other). I am looking forward to Brad/VR’s Pantheon. :)
#communitymatters
oneADseven said:Syrif said:oneADseven said:#CommunityMatters #ChallengeReborn #BestOfBothWorlds #TrustInPantheon
Great hashtags, except for ‘bestofbothworlds.’ Pantheon will be Pantheon. Brought to us by the makers of EQ and VG. Pantheon onward. :)
I was referencing both EQ and VG, though the application of "Worlds" wasn't literal in that sense.
Aw that sounds good to me then ;) Just plz no WoW and ff worlds.. I didn’t like vanilla either. Would rather not see Pantheon go in that direction. EQ and VG were both good games imo that were not clones of each other.