Actually many times, in fact I will say most people do not have reasons for prefering something, or at the very least do not know why they prefer something over another. I would say most times most people have never really thought about why they prefer one thing over another.
Actually knowing yourself well enough to find the reasons for your preferences is actually very challenging that involves a great deal of self-reflection and self-critique, unovering your biases and then a willingness to change or eliminate that bias, that most people are not willing to do.
And again there is a significant and meaningful difference between preference and opinion, therefor it is not pedantic.
However we are going in circles now.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If one's going to espouse the virtues of something they love, I'd prefer they know what it is and why. Otherwise it's generally just a lot of yelling.
Definately. This I can absolutely agree with.
I may not be able to do/say or even want to do or say anything about their preference but as soon as they give a reason for it, the reasons themselves are fair game. And if the reasons are stupid, I have no trouble saying there preference is stupid and unsupported. I just can't say their preference is wrong.
Hmmm maybe thats why people never give reasons... they know they now have to defend them where as just saying I like this or this sucks, is really a useless but unarguable position.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Older games seem better to me, not because of some nostalgia effect but because I generaly like the majority of design choices and implimentation more then I do in most of todays games. It's that simple.
But it's possible what that implies is a resistance to change (on your part) rather than a failure in the development (on their part).
There's a lot of murky in this topic, particularly since it ties in so much long-term Standard MMORPG.com Rhetoric. They've been gathered, wringing their hands and sobbing out "doooom", for just as long as this site's been open.
Technology, and the gaming universe, evolves away from those old favorites of 2000, exactly the same as it evolved away from the old favorites of 1990...or of 1980...
But no matter how many people want the bus to "stop stop so I can get off"...the bus keeps rolling and entropy always increases. And sooner or later, the radio station stops playing your favorite Oldies (and passes on to the next decade).
Certainly possible.
Older games seem worse to me, because i generally dislike the majority of design choices and implementation more than i do in most of today games.
That's where your wrong, in 2003 we were not talking about MMO's being doomed. But now we have seen what that doom has wrought, MMO's are different games now. If you look at other genres changes have occurred, some which are similar but not to the same extent. FPS is still FPS even if they expect you to sit through huge cut scenes, Driving has hardly changed, Stratergy the same. Gaming has seen a move to easymode, but its not the same across the board, MMOs have been made caricatures of what they once were.
Not that everything today is bad, we have innovative combat systems, voice talent and MMOs caught up with solo games graphic wise. But when you add it all up we have shallow easymode MMOs compared to what we once had.
If one's going to espouse the virtues of something they love, I'd prefer they know what it is and why. Otherwise it's generally just a lot of yelling.
Definately. This I can absolutely agree with.
I may not be able to do/say or even want to do or say anything about their preference but as soon as they give a reason for it, the reasons themselves are fair game. And if the reasons are stupid, I have no trouble saying there preference is stupid and unsupported. I just can't say their preference is wrong.
Hmmm maybe thats why people never give reasons... they know they now have to defend them where as just saying I like this or this sucks, is really a useless but unarguable position.
This is something I was getting at in another thread, we need to explain why we like or don't like elements of games, otherwise you don't get any idea of where the other guy is coming from.
So for me PvP adds spice, danger, an element of the unknown. I know other players who describe it using words like 'distraction, pointless, gank fest'. There are reasons we have these preferences and sometimes they can be addressed, so you can have less ganking by putting everyone at the same level in a PvP zone. For some though its just not for them, the gameplay does not inspire them enough to want to dive in.
After one week of playing World of Tanks, I gave feedback on the forums about, among others, how the game mode (only one at that time) should be improved. I was immediately attacked by fans who had more battles under their belt saying I shouldn't make such comments.
Thing is, I wrote down those names, and 1 year later after I while I was the field commander of a clan with the highest victory% in EU at one time, I reviewed my feedback and I still agreed with it. Furthermore, I checked the people who had replied to my post and I was way above them in the rankings. For anyone interested, I had a 63% win ratio and perhaps over 5000 battles played - closed beta included. But this is beside the point.
The point is, the experience you get from other games carries over. There is no new game where there wouldn't be any advantage from playing previous games. One can make an accurate statement about a game, even when have only played said game for a week.
The time you've been subscribing to a game tells me very little how experienced you are. For all I know you might have only clocked less than a 100 hours on it and maybe you've spend all that time picking your nose. It doesn't tell me if you've actually done anything or how well do you master the mechanics and the concepts of the game.
You can be a veteran player and still be full of shit and - this is merely an observation - most of them are. I don't need to spend months or years playing a game before making an accurate assessment of it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The only reason for old things seem better than new ones is a psychological effect called "Rosy Retrospection". Google it, and maybe you won't be happy knowing it because you think that you are above psychological studies that only affect the "mindless cattle". Like everyone else.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
And I'm saying there preference is not less valid.
Their opinion is less valid. Their belief may be less valid.
A preference does not have any objective measure or meaning, so one preference cannot be more or less valid than another.
edit - ok have to run for a couple hours. Be back later to tell you how wrong you are
Can we revisit the whole "you're being pedantic" thing?
Somebody's preference being used as an argument for anything or even to convey any information is less valid if that preference is based in a lack of information. That preference is less useful to any kind of conversation. You don't like the word "valid" in this case, I guess? Then what would you have me say? The point is the piece of information that we're receiving (in this case, somebody's preference) is less important, less reliable, less whatever than the piece of information you can get from the preference of somebody who knows what they're talking about.
I'm not sure how else you want me to say this other than "not all preferences are created equal." What does equality mean in this case? It seems to me that if one preference gives you less reliable information than another preference, those 2 pieces of data (the 2 preferences) are NOT equal. Am I missing something here?
No. No one's preference is ever less valid than anothers. Ever. One person's desire for something (their preference) is not less valid than someone else's desire for something (their preference). It can often be stupid, morally wrong (depending on your code) or illegal, but it is not less valid.
It can, and usually is less usefull.
Usefullness and validity are two completely different concepts that are not interchangeable, although one can cause the other.
Usefull - to be of use...
Valid - well grounded, having a sound basis in logic or fact...
Two very very different terms
So yes all preferences are equal.
Someone's preference will never tell you anything about the reliability of anything. A preference has nothing to do with reliability. It only tells you someone desires something over another. And these are all equal.
I like this - preference - never wrong
I want this - possibly preference - if a preference it is not incorrect. It may not be smart or in the best interest but it is not incorrect.
This is crap - opinion, which can often be wrong
I like this because that is crap - preference with opinion. The preference is not incorrect however the opinion might be.
I like this better than that but know nothing about that - cannot be a preference. You cannot prefer something over another without knowing at least something of what the other is. This is merely an ignorant assumption usually done to troll/intimidate/antagonize...
First of all, equality doesn't just pertain to validity. If two preferences have differing levels of usefulness in a conversation then they're not equal.
Second, if your preference is based in misinformation, how is that not more invalid? As you say, valid means to have a sound basis in logic or fact.
You're also just kind of making up your own definitions for the word preference. Saying "I want this" IS a preference. And you haven't really ever dealt with my question about how much knowledge you need to have before you'd be willing to call it a preference. You say "knowing at least something of what the other is." Well you always know SOMETHING about it, even if it 's just the name. This is why your definition of preference/prefer is arbitrary and wrong. Preference is what you choose. And if your choice isn't as grounded in fact or logic as another person's choice, it's less valid.
I think discussing opinion is a far better way to go.
Telling someone their preference sucks is an exercise in futility.
But I disagree there are less valid preferences. Someone's desire for something is never less valid than anothers. Preferences do not need supporting logic, it is just a preference.
Preferences are generally useless really anywhere unless you are a marketer. But they are not invalid.
edit - to your edit. As I stated with holo. A preference is desiring (prefering) something over another. Because a preference requires you to prefer one thing over another, if you dont' have knowledge of the other you cannot prefer it or the other. Therefore this is not a case of a less valid preference because it isn't a preference at all.
Here's what I don't get. You say that you need some knowledge of the two products in order to prefer one over the other. But knowledge of something is always a sliding scale. So is there a threshold of how much knowledge you should have about something before you can call it a preference? Or is does the preference become more valid the more you know about the products? And if it's the former, who makes that decision? It seems arbitrary. If it's the latter, then apology accepted I guess.
Not that everything today is bad, we have innovative combat systems, voice talent and MMOs caught up with solo games graphic wise. But when you add it all up we have shallow easymode MMOs compared to what we once had.
You have a weird definition of "shallow easymode".
To me, single mob camp, a large amount of EQ gameplay, *is* shadow easymode.
Why?
shadow - you are killing the same mob with the same tactic every time. That is repetitive, and shallow with no variation and no thinking needed.
easy - well .. you never fail. Usually the mob die within second of spawning. And if there are other groups, they will "help" and make it even more trivial.
And the old MMOs have the added downside of downtime, and very boring because you spent most of the time chatting and not playing a game.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
Not that everything today is bad, we have innovative combat systems, voice talent and MMOs caught up with solo games graphic wise. But when you add it all up we have shallow easymode MMOs compared to what we once had.
You have a weird definition of "shallow easymode".
To me, single mob camp, a large amount of EQ gameplay, *is* shadow easymode.
Why?
shadow - you are killing the same mob with the same tactic every time. That is repetitive, and shallow with no variation and no thinking needed.
easy - well .. you never fail. Usually the mob die within second of spawning. And if there are other groups, they will "help" and make it even more trivial.
And the old MMOs have the added downside of downtime, and very boring because you spent most of the time chatting and not playing a game.
Now my comments are directed at pve only.
It depends on why you're killing the mob. I can't speak for EQ but in other old-school games you have a reason to grind certain mobs.
Originally posted by Scot ...in 2003 we were not talking about MMO's being doomed. But now we have seen what that doom has wrought, MMO's are different games now. If you look at other genres changes have occurred, some which are similar but not to the same extent. FPS is still FPS even if they expect you to sit through huge cut scenes, Driving has hardly changed, Stratergy the same. Gaming has seen a move to easymode, but its not the same across the board, MMOs have been made caricatures of what they once were.Not that everything today is bad, we have innovative combat systems, voice talent and MMOs caught up with solo games graphic wise. But when you add it all up we have shallow easymode MMOs compared to what we once had.
Exactly right; in 2003 no one was tossing around doom prophecies, but today they are quite common. Yes you are aboslutely correct that todays games are shallow easymode games. They are meant to milk as much of your money as possible while the game is still fresh (which lasts about two weeks)
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
This is true.
Opinions can absolutely be wrong. What someone thinks is very often wrong. I think the moon is made out of cheese. This opinion is wrong. Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong. Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong. If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.
Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong. I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
This is true.
Opinions can absolutely be wrong. What someone thinks is very often wrong. I think the moon is made out of cheese. This opinion is wrong. Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong. Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong. If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.
Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong. I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.
There is a difference between an opinion and an assertion of fact. Opinions are ALWAYS subjective. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. "The moon is made of green cheese" - is NOT actualy an opinion. It's an assertion of fact.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
This is true.
Opinions can absolutely be wrong. What someone thinks is very often wrong. I think the moon is made out of cheese. This opinion is wrong. Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong. Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong. If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.
Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong. I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.
There is a difference between an opinion and an assertion of fact. Opinions are ALWAYS subjective. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. "The moon is made of green cheese" - is NOT actualy an opinion. It's an assertion of fact.
What about before we could prove that the moon was not made of cheese you said "I think the moon is made out of cheese." That would have been considered an opinion and it would be wrong.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
This is true.
Opinions can absolutely be wrong. What someone thinks is very often wrong. I think the moon is made out of cheese. This opinion is wrong. Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong. Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong. If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.
Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong. I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.
Again being pedantic but deconstruct the sentance. "I THINK the moon is made of green cheese". You've just told me something that is factualy accurate ....unless you are lying about what you think. Your belief about the moon has no basis in reality....it's ignorant or ill-informed....but it IS your belief. "The moon is made of green cheese" - This on the other hand is NOT an opinion but an assertion of fact.....and because it is not a statement of thought or belief but an assertion of objective fact... "The moon IS..." can be factualy wrong.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
This is true.
Opinions can absolutely be wrong. What someone thinks is very often wrong. I think the moon is made out of cheese. This opinion is wrong. Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong. Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong. If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.
Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong. I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.
Again being pedantic but deconstruct the sentance. "I THINK the moon is made of green cheese". You've just told me something that is factualy accurate ....unless you are lying about what you think. Your belief about the moon has no basis in reality....it's ignorant or ill-informed....but it IS your belief. "The moon is made of green cheese" - This on the other hand is NOT an opinion but an assertion of fact.....and because it is not a statement of thought or belief but an assertion of objective fact... "The moon IS..." can be factualy wrong.
You have just pedantic'd my ass off. You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Let me change it to "The moon is made of cheese." That would've been an opinion.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
This is true.
Opinions can absolutely be wrong. What someone thinks is very often wrong. I think the moon is made out of cheese. This opinion is wrong. Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong. Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong. If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.
Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong. I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.
Again being pedantic but deconstruct the sentance. "I THINK the moon is made of green cheese". You've just told me something that is factualy accurate ....unless you are lying about what you think. Your belief about the moon has no basis in reality....it's ignorant or ill-informed....but it IS your belief. "The moon is made of green cheese" - This on the other hand is NOT an opinion but an assertion of fact.....and because it is not a statement of thought or belief but an assertion of objective fact... "The moon IS..." can be factualy wrong.
Nm just isn't worth the effort anymore.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Not that everything today is bad, we have innovative combat systems, voice talent and MMOs caught up with solo games graphic wise. But when you add it all up we have shallow easymode MMOs compared to what we once had.
You have a weird definition of "shallow easymode".
To me, single mob camp, a large amount of EQ gameplay, *is* shadow easymode.
Why?
shadow - you are killing the same mob with the same tactic every time. That is repetitive, and shallow with no variation and no thinking needed.
easy - well .. you never fail. Usually the mob die within second of spawning. And if there are other groups, they will "help" and make it even more trivial.
And the old MMOs have the added downside of downtime, and very boring because you spent most of the time chatting and not playing a game.
Now my comments are directed at pve only.
To be fair while there were easy single pull camps in the 'good old days' of EQ (and there are more of them now I'll grant you), they usually didn't reward the player much for being there. The most rewarding areas were usually those with mob splitting or crowd control required (and whilst yes when things were going well it was repetitive, the real show began when things didn't go well - when a pull came with adds, roamers or a failed attempt at crowd control and the choices you made with your limited abilities shone through). Higher risk for more reward. Modern MMOs tend to make it pretty hard to die at all in PvE unless at the very highest tier of content (and very few play that, despite every one on every forum claiming they do).
As for other groups helping...most groups gave each other some room, so a potential wipe wouldn't affect them and if both groups fight over content neither walks away happy. There was more chance of a nearby group hindering than helping. Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?
The downtime in the old games was not as harsh as people like to make out. If you adjusted and managed your rescources downtime for most classes was no worse than some modern MMOs...however I agree if you were awful at resource management the game wouldn't pat your head condescendingly while throwing more resources at you. Besides, chatting was a part of the game that I enjoyed (and quite a few others too, though I admit many today seem to abhor social interactions whilst screaming about the loss of community).
Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?
That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.
Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.
While some may not care for instances in games, it was a solution to these sorts of problems. There were numerous camping problems and I am sure that developers everywhere would love to hear of other, achieveable, solutions.
It was one of the many issues with the 'old school' games that lead to me avoiding them. The bad outweighed the good imo.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?
That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.
Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.
While some may not care for instances in games, it was a solution to these sorts of problems. There were numerous camping problems and I am sure that developers everywhere would love to hear of other, achieveable, solutions.
It was one of the many issues with the 'old school' games that lead to me avoiding them. The bad outweighed the good imo.
The one thing that hasn't changed in 10-15 years is gamers' obsession with having exclusive or rare loot. That's one thing I would have hoped would have disappeared (or at least decreased) by now. You wouldn't need to worry about instancing, spawn camping or general asshattery if a game had more to offer than another +2 upgrade to dexterity in the latest dungeon that be released.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Comments
Actually many times, in fact I will say most people do not have reasons for prefering something, or at the very least do not know why they prefer something over another. I would say most times most people have never really thought about why they prefer one thing over another.
Actually knowing yourself well enough to find the reasons for your preferences is actually very challenging that involves a great deal of self-reflection and self-critique, unovering your biases and then a willingness to change or eliminate that bias, that most people are not willing to do.
And again there is a significant and meaningful difference between preference and opinion, therefor it is not pedantic.
However we are going in circles now.
That's a point of complaint I have about humans.
If one's going to espouse the virtues of something they love, I'd prefer they know what it is and why. Otherwise it's generally just a lot of yelling.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Definately. This I can absolutely agree with.
I may not be able to do/say or even want to do or say anything about their preference but as soon as they give a reason for it, the reasons themselves are fair game. And if the reasons are stupid, I have no trouble saying there preference is stupid and unsupported. I just can't say their preference is wrong.
Hmmm maybe thats why people never give reasons... they know they now have to defend them where as just saying I like this or this sucks, is really a useless but unarguable position.
That's where your wrong, in 2003 we were not talking about MMO's being doomed. But now we have seen what that doom has wrought, MMO's are different games now. If you look at other genres changes have occurred, some which are similar but not to the same extent. FPS is still FPS even if they expect you to sit through huge cut scenes, Driving has hardly changed, Stratergy the same. Gaming has seen a move to easymode, but its not the same across the board, MMOs have been made caricatures of what they once were.
Not that everything today is bad, we have innovative combat systems, voice talent and MMOs caught up with solo games graphic wise. But when you add it all up we have shallow easymode MMOs compared to what we once had.
This is something I was getting at in another thread, we need to explain why we like or don't like elements of games, otherwise you don't get any idea of where the other guy is coming from.
So for me PvP adds spice, danger, an element of the unknown. I know other players who describe it using words like 'distraction, pointless, gank fest'. There are reasons we have these preferences and sometimes they can be addressed, so you can have less ganking by putting everyone at the same level in a PvP zone. For some though its just not for them, the gameplay does not inspire them enough to want to dive in.
After one week of playing World of Tanks, I gave feedback on the forums about, among others, how the game mode (only one at that time) should be improved. I was immediately attacked by fans who had more battles under their belt saying I shouldn't make such comments.
Thing is, I wrote down those names, and 1 year later after I while I was the field commander of a clan with the highest victory% in EU at one time, I reviewed my feedback and I still agreed with it. Furthermore, I checked the people who had replied to my post and I was way above them in the rankings. For anyone interested, I had a 63% win ratio and perhaps over 5000 battles played - closed beta included. But this is beside the point.
The point is, the experience you get from other games carries over. There is no new game where there wouldn't be any advantage from playing previous games. One can make an accurate statement about a game, even when have only played said game for a week.
The time you've been subscribing to a game tells me very little how experienced you are. For all I know you might have only clocked less than a 100 hours on it and maybe you've spend all that time picking your nose. It doesn't tell me if you've actually done anything or how well do you master the mechanics and the concepts of the game.
You can be a veteran player and still be full of shit and - this is merely an observation - most of them are. I don't need to spend months or years playing a game before making an accurate assessment of it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
First of all, equality doesn't just pertain to validity. If two preferences have differing levels of usefulness in a conversation then they're not equal.
Second, if your preference is based in misinformation, how is that not more invalid? As you say, valid means to have a sound basis in logic or fact.
You're also just kind of making up your own definitions for the word preference. Saying "I want this" IS a preference. And you haven't really ever dealt with my question about how much knowledge you need to have before you'd be willing to call it a preference. You say "knowing at least something of what the other is." Well you always know SOMETHING about it, even if it 's just the name. This is why your definition of preference/prefer is arbitrary and wrong. Preference is what you choose. And if your choice isn't as grounded in fact or logic as another person's choice, it's less valid.
Here's what I don't get. You say that you need some knowledge of the two products in order to prefer one over the other. But knowledge of something is always a sliding scale. So is there a threshold of how much knowledge you should have about something before you can call it a preference? Or is does the preference become more valid the more you know about the products? And if it's the former, who makes that decision? It seems arbitrary. If it's the latter, then apology accepted I guess.
You have a weird definition of "shallow easymode".
To me, single mob camp, a large amount of EQ gameplay, *is* shadow easymode.
Why?
shadow - you are killing the same mob with the same tactic every time. That is repetitive, and shallow with no variation and no thinking needed.
easy - well .. you never fail. Usually the mob die within second of spawning. And if there are other groups, they will "help" and make it even more trivial.
And the old MMOs have the added downside of downtime, and very boring because you spent most of the time chatting and not playing a game.
Now my comments are directed at pve only.
Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.
Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.
You have a weird definition of "shallow easymode".
To me, single mob camp, a large amount of EQ gameplay, *is* shadow easymode.
Why?
shadow - you are killing the same mob with the same tactic every time. That is repetitive, and shallow with no variation and no thinking needed.
easy - well .. you never fail. Usually the mob die within second of spawning. And if there are other groups, they will "help" and make it even more trivial.
And the old MMOs have the added downside of downtime, and very boring because you spent most of the time chatting and not playing a game.
Now my comments are directed at pve only.
It depends on why you're killing the mob. I can't speak for EQ but in other old-school games you have a reason to grind certain mobs.Exactly right; in 2003 no one was tossing around doom prophecies, but today they are quite common. Yes you are aboslutely correct that todays games are shallow easymode games. They are meant to milk as much of your money as possible while the game is still fresh (which lasts about two weeks)
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.
I think cause they we're still original, and now their all a-like.
World of Warcraft was my first MMO, and still my number one MMO to date.
This is true.
Opinions can absolutely be wrong. What someone thinks is very often wrong. I think the moon is made out of cheese. This opinion is wrong. Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong. Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong. If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.
Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong. I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.
There is a difference between an opinion and an assertion of fact. Opinions are ALWAYS subjective. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. "The moon is made of green cheese" - is NOT actualy an opinion. It's an assertion of fact.
What about before we could prove that the moon was not made of cheese you said "I think the moon is made out of cheese." That would have been considered an opinion and it would be wrong.
Again being pedantic but deconstruct the sentance. "I THINK the moon is made of green cheese". You've just told me something that is factualy accurate ....unless you are lying about what you think. Your belief about the moon has no basis in reality....it's ignorant or ill-informed....but it IS your belief. "The moon is made of green cheese" - This on the other hand is NOT an opinion but an assertion of fact.....and because it is not a statement of thought or belief but an assertion of objective fact... "The moon IS..." can be factualy wrong.
You have just pedantic'd my ass off. You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Let me change it to "The moon is made of cheese." That would've been an opinion.
To be fair while there were easy single pull camps in the 'good old days' of EQ (and there are more of them now I'll grant you), they usually didn't reward the player much for being there. The most rewarding areas were usually those with mob splitting or crowd control required (and whilst yes when things were going well it was repetitive, the real show began when things didn't go well - when a pull came with adds, roamers or a failed attempt at crowd control and the choices you made with your limited abilities shone through). Higher risk for more reward. Modern MMOs tend to make it pretty hard to die at all in PvE unless at the very highest tier of content (and very few play that, despite every one on every forum claiming they do).
As for other groups helping...most groups gave each other some room, so a potential wipe wouldn't affect them and if both groups fight over content neither walks away happy. There was more chance of a nearby group hindering than helping. Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?
The downtime in the old games was not as harsh as people like to make out. If you adjusted and managed your rescources downtime for most classes was no worse than some modern MMOs...however I agree if you were awful at resource management the game wouldn't pat your head condescendingly while throwing more resources at you. Besides, chatting was a part of the game that I enjoyed (and quite a few others too, though I admit many today seem to abhor social interactions whilst screaming about the loss of community).
That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.
Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.
While some may not care for instances in games, it was a solution to these sorts of problems. There were numerous camping problems and I am sure that developers everywhere would love to hear of other, achieveable, solutions.
It was one of the many issues with the 'old school' games that lead to me avoiding them. The bad outweighed the good imo.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
The one thing that hasn't changed in 10-15 years is gamers' obsession with having exclusive or rare loot. That's one thing I would have hoped would have disappeared (or at least decreased) by now. You wouldn't need to worry about instancing, spawn camping or general asshattery if a game had more to offer than another +2 upgrade to dexterity in the latest dungeon that be released.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.