Ye Olde Glory Dayes

[Apoth]

Put in red the part of your quote I find extremely funny. You argue, possibly in this thread, I forget exactly where, that mechanics do not make a community. When people ask for mechanics that encourage community, such as encouraged grouping You say it is the players that form the communit, not the mechanics, then go on to state right there, that Devs use mechanics to get players to play how they like. Completely contradictory.

As to Studies, I am with Barar, that many are done by people that have no clue about the game in the first place, and that it isn't actually scientific, accurate research. I am sure I can look and find studies that show just about anything I want too, if I cared. Unfortunately, that is the society where we live in. People will research something and will skew things towards their viewpoint, only sharing that which supports what they want to say.

I want to see you and Barar find some studies that DISPROVE what kendricke is saying.

have fun!

[Barar]

I want to see you and Barar find some studies that DISPROVE what kendricke is saying.

have fun!

That would require me to indulge in what i despise -- not going to happen.

[Kendricke]

However, what I cannot agree with, nor do your cited studies well support, is that fun is not important. You imply this by saying that the level of challenge is not crititcal.

I did not say challenge is not important. I never said nor implied that fun is not important. As a point of fact, I believe both articles are very important to any game design. Where would you ever get the idea that I do not think challenge or fun are important factors in a game's design or in player retention?

However, I will stand by my earlier conclusions that challenge is not necessarily the primary factor in retention. I would argue now as I've argued previously that social organizations and bonds are a much stronger ideal for player retention. The most challenging game in the world may not be very fun to play over and over again. My shelves are littered with games that I've played through once and then never touched again - this isn't because the games too easy, but because these particulare titles simply didn't interest me enough to merit a second play-through.

MMOs can be incredibly challenging and still lose players. Challenge alone is not enough to determine whether or not a game is fun enough to continue playing.

In addition, the concept of challenge is subjective and can change greatly depending on whom you're speaking with. I know of hardcore raiders who find entry level raid targets ridiculously easy...and yet this is content that other players simply cannot get past. Is the content challenging? Who are you asking?

You use Tic Tac Toe to point out an unchallenging game that no one continues to play. Of course, Tic Tac Toe isn't exactly a game designed for adults. You can outgrow Tic Tac Toe. That said, Tic Tac Toe is still an incredibly popular game...for young children. Not all challenge is equal. To most 4-year olds, Chess would be incredibly frustrating and overwhelming, whereas Tic Tac Toe is something they can typically learn quickly and enjoy playing right away. Comparing the two is simply an unfair analogy - one may as well compare poker to hopscotch. A more pertinent example would be Free Realms. I don't personally enjoy playing Free Realms - this isn't because it's a bad game design or that it's not challenging - I'm just not the primary intended audience for Free Realms. To someone who falls within that age bracket, the game could be incredibly fun and challenging.

Does any of this mean that challenge equates to fun? Not at all. Challenge can contribute to fun, but it can also be a detriment to that same goal. I know many people who personally are turned off by Chess completely, in part because the game IS so complex and challenging. I know of people who enjoy playing Chess, but they do not enjoy playing against someone else who is far better than them - they realize before the game starts that they have little chance of success and don't feel it's very much fun when they're simply going to get beaten time and again with little hope for winning.

Frankly, I love shooting hoops from time to time. I wouldn't find it much fun to play hoops against a pro-baller, though. Standing around getting trounced isn't very much fun for me. I might enjoy watching that person play basketball, but I'm not as interested in just standing around while I get taken to school. This is why most modern shooters or RTS titles include matchmaking of some kind. Very few people find it fun to play against another player who is exponentially better than they are. They want to find someone they at least have a chance of winning against.

Of course, those games would be challenging. However, would they be fun?

[Calsedon]

I don't lkook up studies to try to enforce my opinion on others. The fact that after 11 years EQ1 is still around and still has quite a few players tells me all I need to know. And that is, different strokes for different folks. Myself, I would never ever play EQ1, with just updated graphics, combat. There are quite a few things I hate from EQ1. I do not have rose-tinted glasses on. That said, there are several things I liked from EQ1 that have gone the way of the dodo. I would like to see some of those brought back.

[Kendricke]

I don't lkook up studies to try to enforce my opinion on others.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't look up studies primarily to enforce my opinion on others. I read gaming articles and studies on a daily basis in order to educate my opinion before I speak with others.

Look, this isn't personal for me and I really don't have to spend time sharing this information. If you dislike what I'm posting, you're free to believe as you wish. I'm not out to convert you to some evil way of thought. I'm very interested in what makes games tick. I'm interesting in what makes gamers tick. I'm interested in finding ways to improve games.

Discussions like this are my way of entering into a healthy debate regarding gaming. I'm interested in learning at least as much as I am in sharing what I may have already learned. If you have something to share, I'm genuinely interested in hearing it. I just ask that you not be offended if I don't agree with your opinions. I certainly am not offended if you choose not to agree with mine.

[Calsedon]

I would say most people aren't offended that you disagree with them. I know I certainly am not. SOme of my best friends I disagree with on a daily basis about game mechanics. However, and this is just my opinion, but I feel quite a few feel the same way, is that you come off as an extremely biased person about anything that reminds you of EQ1 and slam people that may like stuff that comes close to it.

That said, there are certainly people on the other side of the argument doing the exact same thing in regards to their hatred of WoW and love of EQ1. People need to look objectively at stuff, try to understand why 1 side hates or loves something and debate the merits of it. Not just slam things because they are EQ1-like or WoW-like. I have played both, and both had some great features. Unfortunately, people look at something based on what they like and don't understand how it might not be fun/good to someone else.

I dislike contested raids, crafting in general etc. I will argue against contested raids, but based on the facts of why I think they fail the playerbase, not because of why I dislike them personally. I think they take away from developer time building content everyone can access each week. But I also certainly understand people enjoy them, and having them in a game is neither right nor wrong. Though I do believe you won't see it in a game again, at least not many contested raid mobs like old EQ1/2.

[Tachi]

I have to say this thread was nice to read (and yeah I did read it through again *rubs red eyes*). All I'll say is: Kendricke, you're a very mature and intelligent poster who invites healthy discussion. Thank you.