Where confusion is creeping in is the difference between a preference and an opinion. I think examples work better so here is one. I have a preference for PvP in a MMO, I think they spice up a MMO, giving it an edge. It is my opinion that in today's MMO market a MMO that does not have PvP is likely to fail long term. Or that PvP has been downgraded in difficulty as MMOs have changed over the years. The terms can be ambiguous, but I will say this about opinions:
I would give the opinion of a person who has played a game for 15 mins less value than one who has played a game for a week.
I would give the opinion of a gamer who started last week less weight as one who started ten years ago.
If I did not see opinions this way then I would regard gaming journalists as having no special insight, their opinions being only as valid as any poster here. Regardless of years spent and contacts on the inside they have made.
So it is a tricky area, preferences and opinions are not the same concept.
Some people are just trying to shut others up by claiming their preferences are the "right" ones. I would just ignore that.
I would also like to add that anything that says "i like this" or "i like that" is a preference. The notion that there is a "right" preference is just silly. Why? Because a) no one is going to change their preference just because some dude says it is "wrong" on the internet, and b) the market demand is governed by the aggregate preferences of all the players, and saying the market is "wrong" is like saying the sun should come up on the west instead.
People who says other preferences are wrong are just trying make themselves feel superior with meaningless words.
In your example, i can say my preference is different, and i don't like pvp in my MMOs while i can say you should not have that preference. And obviously i can agree or disagree with your opinion that the lack of pvp may lead to long term failure (given you define what failure means clearly). People need to understand the differences between preferences and opinions.
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
That's not to be elitist or pretend that any individuals subjective judgement is more valid then anothers (except mine which reigns supreme over all of yours). Just that any discussion is neccessarly going to be dictated by our individual tastes. Kind of a given.
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.
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
Actually no .. because you have not taken price into account. If a steak is going to be at the same price as a Big Mac, it would have won out by a huge margin.
All it says is that Big Mac at $5 (or whatever the right price) is "more popular" than a steak at $25 (or whatever the right price), which works quite well.
But again, this is not "better", this is "more popular", which can be measured objectively.
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).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
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.
Others have listed most of the reasons why older games are preferred, I won't bother repeating them. Trying to say it's because I dislike change is silly. I actually like a lot of newer features in games now, but they seem to get the core mechanics wrong (Like the ability to solo everything. That's why I play single-player games, not MMOs). The rose-colored glasses argument is tired also. It's a simple way to completely dismiss a group of gamers because you disagree with them or were too young to experience these games in their prime or before sweeping changes were made to them.
I don't see why a core mechanics can be wrong. It just is .. and sometimes it is preferred by some players, and sometimes not.
So what if solo content is put into a MMO.
The only relevant question is if that solo content is fun. If so, i will play it, whether it is in a MMO, an SP game with online features, or SP game with no online features.
And following your logic .. are you going dismiss a group of gamers because they prefer new games instead of old ones because they found the new games better because it is a "simpler way"?
Your preference is not better than others.
Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens.
So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out.
Oh god. I wasn't going to post but I just couldn't help it.
Preferences are not all created equal. They aren't. Stop acting like they are. Some preferences are better than others because some people have more experience than others. God no. Preferences are equal. It is a prefernce. Preferences are not merely opinions, they are an expression of someone's likes and dislikes. There is absolutely no objective way of measuring them, your experience will shape your opinion but haaving more experiences doesn't make a prefernce better, just different. It may make an opinion better, not a preference.
Likewise, some people are less biased than others. There are many ways somebody's opinion ca be better than somebody else's. Yes opinions can be better, opinions can be wrong too. Opinions and preferences are very different things.
Stop trying to push this nonsense that somebody's "preference" is god. People can be ill-informed, mistaken or just plain stupid. It happens. Yes they can, none of which really has anything to do with preference, unless people really don't know if they like something or not.
This seems nonsensical. Preferences are based on opinions, which you admit aren't all created equal. Yet you claim that preferences are all created equal. What if somebody says I prefer game A over game B. What if they haven't played game B? Is his preference EXACTLY the same as somebody who prefers game A over game B and has played both extensively? I'm not sure how you think this is a defensible position, if that's what you're saying.
So what if solo content is put into an MMO? It's mixing genres, that's what. By making MMOs more like single player games, you're disenfranchising people who want to play an MMO. So what if metal became more like country music? Well, then people who like metal are missing out. Guess what, solo content, a lot of it, has been around since the very first MMO's on the market. In fact you could say the genre was built with as much solo content as group content, it was only EQ that messed that up. So no it is not mixing genre's, having solo content could be said to be going back to the roots of the genre.
I think you need to slow down a little bit and think about what I'm claiming and what you're arguing against. I'm not in this particular argument making the claim that MMOs are making a shift towards more solo content. I DO think that, but that's not what I'm claiming in the bit that you're quoting. I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content. Somebody else suggested that increasing the amount of solo content isn't inherently bad, or is even good (I don't remember what they actually said). I'm saying that increasing the amount of solo content in MMOs is moving away from what makes this genre different from other genres.
A preference is a like or a dislike. It may be based on someone's opinion of something, but if that opinion is incorrect it may not change whether they like whatever the subject is. Preferences are all equal, opinions are not.
Preferences and opinions are not the same.
I don't like brussel sprouts. That is a preference. I think they are bad for you, this is opinion and is incorrect. It will not change my preference and my preference is not wrong.
A preference is greater liking for one alternative over another or others. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Regarding solo content. You stated, "I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content."
I'm saying that is incorrect. I'm saying the genre started with tons of solo content, the ability to solo a great deal, from beginning to end has been in the genre since day one. The genre started with a tonne of solo content, EQ moved away from that. Therefore adding more solo content is not mixing genre's, it is staying true to the MMO and specifically the MMORPG genre.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
Actually no .. because you have not taken price into account. If a steak is going to be at the same price as a Big Mac, it would have won out by a huge margin.
All it says is that Big Mac at $5 (or whatever the right price) is "more popular" than a steak at $25 (or whatever the right price), which works quite well.
But again, this is not "better", this is "more popular", which can be measured objectively.
Well price isn't a factor in the "Dogs Playing Poker" vs Monet analogy....a print of one costs the same as a print of the other. Nor is the quality of the game itself the only factor in how "popular" it might be.....if that were the case companies wouldn't need to invest in advertising/marketing dollars for thier products....and the accessability of the platform they were released on would play no role (e.g. the number of people who had access to computers and reliable internat 20 years ago compared to today).
You are right that we can measure "popularity" objectively. However, the subject here is dealing with "better" not "more popular".....and that neccesarly is going to deal with matters of personal taste.
There are 2 premises floating around this thread. Let's get them straight.
1. Older games are better
They probably are. What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics.
2. Quality of games is TRENDING downwards
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit.
And this too sheesh.
They probably are. Based on nothing but your personal preference and/or opinion.
What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? Probably very little , that is a red herring argument. Each new game doesn't need to be the best ever in order for a general trend of games to be improving.
What are you talking about? Why are you talking about a general trend? I deliberately broke up the two questions because they are indeed two questions. The question is when was the best game released? If MMOs have been around for ~15 years, it's highly unlikely that the best games have occurred very recently, unless you believe there's a general trend upwards in the genre.
This is like the nostalgia arguments that people around here like to bring up. Nostalgia has nothing to do with me liking Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time. There are many games that I enjoyed before those games and I didn't have any problems with nostalgia then. What you're (not you necessarily) really saying is that the game that I feel nostalgia for represents the peak of my gaming enjoyment.... in other words, it's my favorite game.
It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics. Really? Is that the only reason you can think of? Someone that likes newer games is either inexperienced or was turned off by graphics? Come on, how about they were turned off by gameplay, how about they were turned off by too much grouping if they started with EQ, or by ganking if they played a pvp game, or how about by grinding in the same spot for hours and hours and hours. There are likely literally thousands of reasons why a person who played older games did not like them. Simply saying it's because of inexperience of graphics is the worst kind of cop out. Yes there are a lot of new people who are inexperienced. It is equally true there a lot of experienced people who prefer new ones.
Ugh again you're just confused. I'm not saying in order to dislike ANY older game they must just be inexperienced or unable to get over the dated graphics. But if your favorite game of all time is one that has literally just been released, you probably are pretty new to the world of video games. Unless you believe games are constantly getting better, holding unobjectionable things like technical limitations constant, then you pretty much have to believe that the best game of a certain genre or type probably isn't one that is brand spanking new.
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. Again just based on nothing but yoru personal prefernece and opinion. I think it's pretty easy to argue this point actually
The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. They will serve some people better and some people worse, I'm sure a lot of people that played the old ones like the new ones. You constantly hear things about how people like many aspects of newer games, but disliked something else. Just because it was niche does not mean it was serving it's audience well. Just because it is big does not mean it is not serving it's audience badly or alienating more people. It is a fallacy that just because something is niche it is serving an audience better.
Saying they will serve some people better and some people worse misses my point entirely. I said they will server their audience better. I'm saying niche products will server their audience better than mainstream products because niche products can find larger areas of overlapping preferences among their playerbase.
By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit. No. See above. Yes you need to find common ground, that does not mean that they give up certain things. Often it means they add things. Once again, just because somethign is niche doesn't mean it is serving the audience well. In fact the opposite could be true, it was not serving their audience well and so their audience left and it was relegated to the negative connotative status of "Niche" by the public.
Finding common ground quite often DOES mean giving certain things up. It doesn't mean ALWAYS giving things up. You can have an MMO with only one player because the game is just poorly optimized or crashes every 2 seconds. By fixing those problems you're bringing in more people without necessarily alienating anybody. But going from hundreds of thousands of players to tens of millions of players isn't the same thing. At some point you have to go beyond just fixing unobjectionable problems and into the realm of design choices. At some point you start changing your game, not just fixing your game. That's where you're alienating people, at least a little bit. That's where niche products have the advantage.
A preference is a like or a dislike. It may be based on someone's opinion of something, but if that opinion is incorrect it may not change whether they like whatever the subject is. Preferences are all equal, opinions are not.
Preferences and opinions are not the same.
I don't like brussel sprouts. That is a preference. I think they are bad for you, this is opinion and is incorrect. It will not change my preference and my preference is not wrong.
A preference is greater liking for one alternative over another or others. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
No, a preference is choosing one thing over another. That's the definition and most importantly that's how it's always used in context on this site. So I'll ask the question again: If somebody says they prefer game A over game B, but hasn't played game B, is their opinion just as good or valid as somebody who says they prefer game A over game B and has played both quite a bit?
Regarding solo content. You stated, "I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content."
I'm saying that is incorrect. I'm saying the genre started with tons of solo content, the ability to solo a great deal, from beginning to end has been in the genre since day one. The genre started with a tonne of solo content, EQ moved away from that. Therefore adding more solo content is not mixing genre's, it is staying true to the MMO and specifically the MMORPG genre.
I'm not sure how you're still not getting this. When I say what's wrong with adding more solo content, it's assuming the premise is true, which is that the genre is adding more solo content. Again, it was in response to somebody who was essentially saying "so what??" to the claim that more solo content was being added to MMOs.
Whether or not that's actually happening is a different discussion. As I'm sure you're aware I'm always looking for a good argument so it's one I'm totally willing to have... it's just not this particular discussion.
this is often why older folks are stereotypically seen as not embracing change. neurologically, its just harder. so those things we've enjoyed in the past seem more pleasurable because in a sense they really are more pleasurable. and the reason is that the brain is not having to overcome an increasingly difficult hurdle towards change.
this doesn't mean that everyone over 40 can't change or adapt. but it does mean that it is decreasing over time.
Actually those neurological changes can be stopped. The natural changes a body goes through is dependent on the individual and how they go through life. You don't use it, you lose it.
This is the reason why you can go to a rave and see some 70 year olds dancing their backsides off at times, because they never STOPPED. They can still view life as they did when they were young because they never allowed themselves to stop viewing the world as something great, to be enjoyed.
I am in my 40s, I am still continually looking for new things, whats coming out around the corner in music, games, electronics, tech, energy. I do my damndest to learn something new every day, to laugh, to discover. I make it a point to find a new music band every week, either small unknown band in some city, or one from another country. Lately been stuck with Japanese bands, this past week I found Draft King(former members of Stereopony), week before that was Cyntia and before that was Flip.
Prime example, my father and my oldest sister. My father jumped at a chance to get a PC in the late 90s, always wanted one and had a great interest in it. He was near 70 at the time. Learned how to use one, wrote a few novels, created a bookclub, had contacts in many parts of the world and though was a little intimidated by it at first, loved it after a while. Very open person, loved to go out, would listen to modern music and said this to me after seeing Avatar in HD3D. "this is the biggest thing in film since the Wizard of Oz brought color".
My sister to this day looks at computers like its alien tech and is somehow going to kill her. She is in her 50s. Doesn't go out, thinks that parties are for kids, that there hasn't be REAL music since the 70s and watches nothing but re-runs of 30+ year old shows.
Age, its a number and has nothing to do with being old...old is a mindset, the way you view the world. I plan on dying young, no matter what my age is.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
Actually no .. because you have not taken price into account. If a steak is going to be at the same price as a Big Mac, it would have won out by a huge margin.
All it says is that Big Mac at $5 (or whatever the right price) is "more popular" than a steak at $25 (or whatever the right price), which works quite well.
But again, this is not "better", this is "more popular", which can be measured objectively.
Well price isn't a factor in the "Dogs Playing Poker" vs Monet analogy....a print of one costs the same as a print of the other. Nor is the quality of the game itself the only factor in how "popular" it might be.....if that were the case companies wouldn't need to invest in advertising/marketing dollars for thier products....and the accessability of the platform they were released on would play no role (e.g. the number of people who had access to computers and reliable internat 20 years ago compared to today).
You are right that we can measure "popularity" objectively. However, the subject here is dealing with "better" not "more popular".....and that neccesarly is going to deal with matters of personal taste.
I think quality is a measurable thing, just not realistically. I think if you had a large sample of unbiased people and had them play 2 games exhaustively over the course of like a year and then polled them on which game they enjoyed more and which game they thought was better, that would be a good indicator of which game is better. The problem is you can't conduct a test like that. So we're forced to argue about it on the internet. But that doesn't mean you can't argue about which game would win in a scenario like that if it were possible to conduct that test.
A preference is a like or a dislike. It may be based on someone's opinion of something, but if that opinion is incorrect it may not change whether they like whatever the subject is. Preferences are all equal, opinions are not.
Preferences and opinions are not the same.
I don't like brussel sprouts. That is a preference. I think they are bad for you, this is opinion and is incorrect. It will not change my preference and my preference is not wrong.
A preference is greater liking for one alternative over another or others. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
No, a preference is choosing one thing over another. That's the definition and most importantly that's how it's always used in context on this site. So I'll ask the question again: If somebody says they prefer game A over game B, but hasn't played game B, is their opinion just as good or valid as somebody who says they prefer game A over game B and has played both quite a bit?
Regarding solo content. You stated, "I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content."
I'm saying that is incorrect. I'm saying the genre started with tons of solo content, the ability to solo a great deal, from beginning to end has been in the genre since day one. The genre started with a tonne of solo content, EQ moved away from that. Therefore adding more solo content is not mixing genre's, it is staying true to the MMO and specifically the MMORPG genre.
I'm not sure how you're still not getting this. When I say what's wrong with adding more solo content, it's assuming the premise is true, which is that the genre is adding more solo content. Again, it was in response to somebody who was essentially saying "so what??" to the claim that more solo content was being added to MMOs.
Whether or not that's actually happening is a different discussion. As I'm sure you're aware I'm always looking for a good argument so it's one I'm totally willing to have... it's just not this particular discussion.
No a preference is not simply choosign one over another, it is a like or dislike of one thing over another. That is the defnition adn how it is always used in context on this site. The question you are asking now is not what was asked before. This question is about something choosing something when they are uninformed. Their opinion of game B is not as valid, however there preferences may be based on somethign else. AGain there is a difference between preference adn opinion.
I"m not sure how you are not getting this. You stated adding more solo content is mixing genre's. I'm saying it isn't. I'm saying it is staying true to the genre.
EDIT - people choose one thing over another for a great many reaons, often not because of preference. I prefer ice cream over vegetables. I know that vegetables are better for more, so more often than not I choose vegetables over ice cream.
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).
I think you are engaged in a bit of a circular arguement though. A change from something that is "Good" to something that is "Less Good" is obviously something that any normal person would resist. However, what's "Good" in entertainment is entirely a matter of personal taste of the individual. What you are arguing is that what an individual likes (e.g. seems "good" to them) isn't actualy what they like.....or that there is some objectively "valid" and "invalid" way for an individuals tastes to be determined. That's pretty much nonsense.
There are 2 premises floating around this thread. Let's get them straight.
1. Older games are better
They probably are. What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics.
2. Quality of games is TRENDING downwards
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit.
And this too sheesh.
They probably are. Based on nothing but your personal preference and/or opinion.
What are the chances that each new game is the best game of its type ever made? Probably very little , that is a red herring argument. Each new game doesn't need to be the best ever in order for a general trend of games to be improving.
What are you talking about? Why are you talking about a general trend? I deliberately broke up the two questions because they are indeed two questions. The question is when was the best game released? If MMOs have been around for ~15 years, it's highly unlikely that the best games have occurred very recently, unless you believe there's a general trend upwards in the genre.
This is like the nostalgia arguments that people around here like to bring up. Nostalgia has nothing to do with me liking Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time. There are many games that I enjoyed before those games and I didn't have any problems with nostalgia then. What you're (not you necessarily) really saying is that the game that I feel nostalgia for represents the peak of my gaming enjoyment.... in other words, it's my favorite game.
It's highly unlikely for this to be the case. It's far more likely that people who like a newer game, like it because they haven't experienced enough older games, or their experience of them were tainted by NOW inferior graphics. Really? Is that the only reason you can think of? Someone that likes newer games is either inexperienced or was turned off by graphics? Come on, how about they were turned off by gameplay, how about they were turned off by too much grouping if they started with EQ, or by ganking if they played a pvp game, or how about by grinding in the same spot for hours and hours and hours. There are likely literally thousands of reasons why a person who played older games did not like them. Simply saying it's because of inexperience of graphics is the worst kind of cop out. Yes there are a lot of new people who are inexperienced. It is equally true there a lot of experienced people who prefer new ones.
Ugh again you're just confused. I'm not saying in order to dislike ANY older game they must just be inexperienced or unable to get over the dated graphics. But if your favorite game of all time is one that has literally just been released, you probably are pretty new to the world of video games. Unless you believe games are constantly getting better, holding unobjectionable things like technical limitations constant, then you pretty much have to believe that the best game of a certain genre or type probably isn't one that is brand spanking new.
Harder to argue this point, but it's still probably true. Again just based on nothing but yoru personal prefernece and opinion. I think it's pretty easy to argue this point actually
The main argument I'd make is the genre's attempt to make itself bigger (less niche). Niche products, holding certain things constant, will serve their audience better than more mainstream products. They will serve some people better and some people worse, I'm sure a lot of people that played the old ones like the new ones. You constantly hear things about how people like many aspects of newer games, but disliked something else. Just because it was niche does not mean it was serving it's audience well. Just because it is big does not mean it is not serving it's audience badly or alienating more people. It is a fallacy that just because something is niche it is serving an audience better.
Saying they will serve some people better and some people worse misses my point entirely. I said they will server their audience better. I'm saying niche products will server their audience better than mainstream products because niche products can find larger areas of overlapping preferences among their playerbase.
By increasing your playerbase, you have to find more and more common ground when it comes to personal preferences, and by doing so you have to alienate some people... just not enough to get them to quit. No. See above. Yes you need to find common ground, that does not mean that they give up certain things. Often it means they add things. Once again, just because somethign is niche doesn't mean it is serving the audience well. In fact the opposite could be true, it was not serving their audience well and so their audience left and it was relegated to the negative connotative status of "Niche" by the public.
Finding common ground quite often DOES mean giving certain things up. It doesn't mean ALWAYS giving things up. You can have an MMO with only one player because the game is just poorly optimized or crashes every 2 seconds. By fixing those problems you're bringing in more people without necessarily alienating anybody. But going from hundreds of thousands of players to tens of millions of players isn't the same thing. At some point you have to go beyond just fixing unobjectionable problems and into the realm of design choices. At some point you start changing your game, not just fixing your game. That's where you're alienating people, at least a little bit. That's where niche products have the advantage.
The question was not what is the best game released. The question was what are the chances of each new game being the best game of it’s type ever released. Those are very very different questions.
I didn’t bring up nostalgia – and don’t want to get into it because I don’t think it is significantly relevant to our conversation.
I didn’t say you said they must be. In fact I said You sated it was likely because they haven’t experienced it or were turned off by graphics. I’m saying that is false premise. Yes there were many new people when WoW came out. But there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who played older games as well, and a great many of them left. Your premise being that if someone didn’t like older games it was likely because they haven’t experienced it or were turned off by graphics, is extremely inflated to the point of being false. There are many many many many other reasons.
I’m saying your wrong in that belief. They may serve it better, they may not
I’m saying you are wrong in that belief. They may serve it better, they may not.
I say quite often finding common ground doesn’t mean giving up, often it means adding things.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
Actually no .. because you have not taken price into account. If a steak is going to be at the same price as a Big Mac, it would have won out by a huge margin.
All it says is that Big Mac at $5 (or whatever the right price) is "more popular" than a steak at $25 (or whatever the right price), which works quite well.
But again, this is not "better", this is "more popular", which can be measured objectively.
Well price isn't a factor in the "Dogs Playing Poker" vs Monet analogy....a print of one costs the same as a print of the other. Nor is the quality of the game itself the only factor in how "popular" it might be.....if that were the case companies wouldn't need to invest in advertising/marketing dollars for thier products....and the accessability of the platform they were released on would play no role (e.g. the number of people who had access to computers and reliable internat 20 years ago compared to today).
You are right that we can measure "popularity" objectively. However, the subject here is dealing with "better" not "more popular".....and that neccesarly is going to deal with matters of personal taste.
I think quality is a measurable thing, just not realistically. I think if you had a large sample of unbiased people and had them play 2 games exhaustively over the course of like a year and then polled them on which game they enjoyed more and which game they thought was better, that would be a good indicator of which game is better. The problem is you can't conduct a test like that. So we're forced to argue about it on the internet. But that doesn't mean you can't argue about which game would win in a scenario like that if it were possible to conduct that test.
I think specific aspects of quality definately are, and from there you can draw a conclusion on which is a better game, but the conclusion gets shaky.
You can measure the responsiveness of a system, the bugs, the amount of detail, the amount of content (say different ways to level up, possibly the number of quests - although whether this is one peice of content of 1000 is debatale).
So definately are ways to measure quality.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You are right that we can measure "popularity" objectively. However, the subject here is dealing with "better" not "more popular".....and that neccesarly is going to deal with matters of personal taste.
But there is nothing to deal with.
You state your preferences. I state mine. Life goes on. It is not like anyone is going to change preference here.
A preference is a like or a dislike. It may be based on someone's opinion of something, but if that opinion is incorrect it may not change whether they like whatever the subject is. Preferences are all equal, opinions are not.
Preferences and opinions are not the same.
I don't like brussel sprouts. That is a preference. I think they are bad for you, this is opinion and is incorrect. It will not change my preference and my preference is not wrong.
A preference is greater liking for one alternative over another or others. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
No, a preference is choosing one thing over another. That's the definition and most importantly that's how it's always used in context on this site. So I'll ask the question again: If somebody says they prefer game A over game B, but hasn't played game B, is their opinion just as good or valid as somebody who says they prefer game A over game B and has played both quite a bit?
Regarding solo content. You stated, "I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content."
I'm saying that is incorrect. I'm saying the genre started with tons of solo content, the ability to solo a great deal, from beginning to end has been in the genre since day one. The genre started with a tonne of solo content, EQ moved away from that. Therefore adding more solo content is not mixing genre's, it is staying true to the MMO and specifically the MMORPG genre.
I'm not sure how you're still not getting this. When I say what's wrong with adding more solo content, it's assuming the premise is true, which is that the genre is adding more solo content. Again, it was in response to somebody who was essentially saying "so what??" to the claim that more solo content was being added to MMOs.
Whether or not that's actually happening is a different discussion. As I'm sure you're aware I'm always looking for a good argument so it's one I'm totally willing to have... it's just not this particular discussion.
No a preference is not simply choosign one over another, it is a like or dislike of one thing over another. That is the defnition adn how it is always used in context on this site. The question you are asking now is not what was asked before. This question is about something choosing something when they are uninformed. Their opinion of game B is not as valid, however there preferences may be based on somethign else. AGain there is a difference between preference adn opinion.
I accidentily included the word opinion. I should have said preference. Among those two people, are both of their preferences just as valid? As you now admit, a preference isn't simply liking or disliking something, which is what you originally said. It's liking or disliking something over another thing. But if you have no experience in that other thing, how can you possibly say that's a valid preference???? How can you possibly act like his preference is equal to somebody else's who is completely informed?
I'll use your food analogy. My brother used to prefer mustard over ketchup. This was because he never actually tried ketchup. Once he had, he realized how wrong he had been to prefer mustard over ketchup. It's not like his taste buds changed and he now prefers ketchup over mustard, it was because he was ill informed. How can you possibly be of the opinion that all preferences are created equal?
I"m not sure how you are not getting this. You stated adding more solo content is mixing genre's. I'm saying it isn't. I'm saying it is staying true to the genre.
Do you know what "adding more" means? It means there is now more than there was. The whole premise is that modern MMOs have had more solo content than their predecessors. That's the premise. You're saying you disagree with that premise. Fine. That doesn't change what I've said. Everything I said was based on the assumption that modern MMOs have indeed added more solo content. You saying they haven't, doesn't contradict what I said.
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
Actually no .. because you have not taken price into account. If a steak is going to be at the same price as a Big Mac, it would have won out by a huge margin.
All it says is that Big Mac at $5 (or whatever the right price) is "more popular" than a steak at $25 (or whatever the right price), which works quite well.
But again, this is not "better", this is "more popular", which can be measured objectively.
Well price isn't a factor in the "Dogs Playing Poker" vs Monet analogy....a print of one costs the same as a print of the other. Nor is the quality of the game itself the only factor in how "popular" it might be.....if that were the case companies wouldn't need to invest in advertising/marketing dollars for thier products....and the accessability of the platform they were released on would play no role (e.g. the number of people who had access to computers and reliable internat 20 years ago compared to today).
You are right that we can measure "popularity" objectively. However, the subject here is dealing with "better" not "more popular".....and that neccesarly is going to deal with matters of personal taste.
I think quality is a measurable thing, just not realistically. I think if you had a large sample of unbiased people and had them play 2 games exhaustively over the course of like a year and then polled them on which game they enjoyed more and which game they thought was better, that would be a good indicator of which game is better. The problem is you can't conduct a test like that. So we're forced to argue about it on the internet. But that doesn't mean you can't argue about which game would win in a scenario like that if it were possible to conduct that test.
Well there are SOME aspects of quality that are objectively measurable.....does the game crash?.....does it meet it's hardware requirements..... does it meet it's design specifications.....how many bugs exist, etc? For the rest it's pretty much subjective.
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
Actually no .. because you have not taken price into account. If a steak is going to be at the same price as a Big Mac, it would have won out by a huge margin.
All it says is that Big Mac at $5 (or whatever the right price) is "more popular" than a steak at $25 (or whatever the right price), which works quite well.
But again, this is not "better", this is "more popular", which can be measured objectively.
Well price isn't a factor in the "Dogs Playing Poker" vs Monet analogy....a print of one costs the same as a print of the other. Nor is the quality of the game itself the only factor in how "popular" it might be.....if that were the case companies wouldn't need to invest in advertising/marketing dollars for thier products....and the accessability of the platform they were released on would play no role (e.g. the number of people who had access to computers and reliable internat 20 years ago compared to today).
You are right that we can measure "popularity" objectively. However, the subject here is dealing with "better" not "more popular".....and that neccesarly is going to deal with matters of personal taste.
I think quality is a measurable thing, just not realistically. I think if you had a large sample of unbiased people and had them play 2 games exhaustively over the course of like a year and then polled them on which game they enjoyed more and which game they thought was better, that would be a good indicator of which game is better. The problem is you can't conduct a test like that. So we're forced to argue about it on the internet. But that doesn't mean you can't argue about which game would win in a scenario like that if it were possible to conduct that test.
Well there are SOME aspects of quality that are objectively measurable.....does the game crash?.....does it meet it's hardware requirements..... does it meet it's design specifications.....how many bugs exist, etc? For the rest it's pretty much subjective.
What is a game supposed to do? If the designers say their game is suppose to be enjoyable to players and, in the case of MMOs, supposed to keep people playing, then you can have a discussion about which game is better. Including talking about the subjective sides.
The logical next step would be to measure revenue or aggregate scores from reviews, etc. My problem with those measurements is that there are many different aspects to why people play games. That's why I bring up the hypothetical poll of people who don't have a bias going into it and have played both games extensively. It's not a test that would be easy to conduct (if feasible at all), but again that's why it's a discussion. You can DISCUSS what games would win in that test.
first to be clear, there are significant differences in the mmorpg's from 10-15 years back (or more). so i am not belittling those changes. however, its interesting to note that a number of us older gamers can look back and think: my gahd, what was i thinking camping that spawn all day.
the sad truth, that i am coming to accept, is that neurologically speaking its becoming more and more evident that the brain's ability to adapt to change as we age does diminish and it does diminish noticeably.
im afraid that neurologically speaking some of us are simply getting older. and i mean that sincerely, not casting any aspersions. but the facts are that as you age your neuronal pathways become less and less "flexible" in forming new connections or altering paths.
note, this is not about intelligence or the ability to process information. it seems that in some ways its easier when you are older. but the ability to form new paths or adapt older ones in new ways is affected (even if you are doing Sudoku every morning).
this is often why older folks are stereotypically seen as not embracing change. neurologically, its just harder. so those things we've enjoyed in the past seem more pleasurable because in a sense they really are more pleasurable. and the reason is that the brain is not having to overcome an increasingly difficult hurdle towards change.
this doesn't mean that everyone over 40 can't change or adapt. but it does mean that it is decreasing over time.
This is wrong and I will tell you why. The games have changed over time and are different from what they were ten years ago. Embracing poor changes in my opinion doesn't lead to the conclusion older people are unable to accept change. What people like is subjective.
By the way, I really enjoyed World of Warcraft after I played Everquest for years. Why? I liked the game, I liked the changes. I could solo in this big world and do meaningful very fun group content in my opinion. I enjoyed the game mechanics, I loved the group dynamics, I loved crowd control, and strategy in dungeons.
Everquest changed while I was playing it, guess what for the worse. I didn't like the direction SOE took the game so I moved on to a new game which was different. I didn't like that Everquest had a POK lobby, I didn't like the theme the expansion took, etc. World of Warcraft too has changed in a way I do not like now. The selling of virtual items on top of a subscription, mindless group content that a potatoe could succeed at, pet battles.
So you think you are right but so wrong. I like new games and I like some changes but not all changes. We are going to switch your ice cream on the weekend with asparagus for the sake of change. If you don't like it, you must be old.
A preference is a like or a dislike. It may be based on someone's opinion of something, but if that opinion is incorrect it may not change whether they like whatever the subject is. Preferences are all equal, opinions are not.
Preferences and opinions are not the same.
I don't like brussel sprouts. That is a preference. I think they are bad for you, this is opinion and is incorrect. It will not change my preference and my preference is not wrong.
A preference is greater liking for one alternative over another or others. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
No, a preference is choosing one thing over another. That's the definition and most importantly that's how it's always used in context on this site. So I'll ask the question again: If somebody says they prefer game A over game B, but hasn't played game B, is their opinion just as good or valid as somebody who says they prefer game A over game B and has played both quite a bit?
Regarding solo content. You stated, "I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content."
I'm saying that is incorrect. I'm saying the genre started with tons of solo content, the ability to solo a great deal, from beginning to end has been in the genre since day one. The genre started with a tonne of solo content, EQ moved away from that. Therefore adding more solo content is not mixing genre's, it is staying true to the MMO and specifically the MMORPG genre.
I'm not sure how you're still not getting this. When I say what's wrong with adding more solo content, it's assuming the premise is true, which is that the genre is adding more solo content. Again, it was in response to somebody who was essentially saying "so what??" to the claim that more solo content was being added to MMOs.
Whether or not that's actually happening is a different discussion. As I'm sure you're aware I'm always looking for a good argument so it's one I'm totally willing to have... it's just not this particular discussion.
No a preference is not simply choosign one over another, it is a like or dislike of one thing over another. That is the defnition adn how it is always used in context on this site. The question you are asking now is not what was asked before. This question is about something choosing something when they are uninformed. Their opinion of game B is not as valid, however there preferences may be based on somethign else. AGain there is a difference between preference adn opinion.
I accidentily included the word opinion. I should have said preference. Among those two people, are both of their preferences just as valid? As you now admit, a preference isn't simply liking or disliking something, which is what you originally said. It's liking or disliking something over another thing. But if you have no experience in that other thing, how can you possibly say that's a valid preference???? How can you possibly act like his preference is equal to somebody else's who is completely informed?
I'll use your food analogy. My brother used to prefer mustard over ketchup. This was because he never actually tried ketchup. Once he had, he realized how wrong he had been to prefer mustard over ketchup. It's not like his taste buds changed and he now prefers ketchup over mustard, it was because he was ill informed. How can you possibly be of the opinion that all preferences are created equal?
I"m not sure how you are not getting this. You stated adding more solo content is mixing genre's. I'm saying it isn't. I'm saying it is staying true to the genre.
Do you know what "adding more" means? It means there is now more than there was. The whole premise is that modern MMOs have had more solo content than their predecessors. That's the premise. You're saying you disagree with that premise. Fine. That doesn't change what I've said. Everything I said was based on the assumption that modern MMOs have indeed added more solo content. You saying they haven't, doesn't contradict what I said.
If they have never tried the other, it is not a case of a preferring one over the other. It is not a preference, no matter the person says, it is just an assumption.
Of course if the person had tried similar games, it could be a preference and would be just as valid. We are talking about something they like or dislike.
He was not wrong to prefer mustard, he never had the preference as far as taste is concerned. Maybe he liked the color better or the way it looked. As far as taste goes, he cannot prefer the taste of one over another he has not tasted both, so not a preference, but is an ignorant assumption.
And taste buds absolutely can change, or rather our sensitivity can change which affects how things taste.
And I’m saying that that premise is wrong, it is only adding more than SOME of their predecessors. That MANY of the predecessors had just as much. Everything I’m saying is that modern MMO’s have not added more than the ancestors, only than some of their ancestors, by all accounts AC had tons of solo content, as did UO. I know EQ and COH had tons of solo content. Arguably more than today’s games.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
As to why older games are better, not seem, are better is because the mechanics of every game released in the last couple of years are slight deviations from the games we were playing in 1980 and earlier.
NOTHING NEW.
Sure, there are stories (usually shallow representations of Tolkien's world), and new payment models but the simple fact is games have not gotten better, they have in fact gotten much worse. When once upon a time we were given worlds to explore and adventure in, we are now given subpar choose your own adventure books. At least in those books, your choices mattered to the narrative. In games, no. Do they look pretty? Sure. But just like Hollywood and the bimbo down the street they might look purty but they have about as much depth as a piece of blank paper.
Comments
Some people are just trying to shut others up by claiming their preferences are the "right" ones. I would just ignore that.
I would also like to add that anything that says "i like this" or "i like that" is a preference. The notion that there is a "right" preference is just silly. Why? Because a) no one is going to change their preference just because some dude says it is "wrong" on the internet, and b) the market demand is governed by the aggregate preferences of all the players, and saying the market is "wrong" is like saying the sun should come up on the west instead.
People who says other preferences are wrong are just trying make themselves feel superior with meaningless words.
In your example, i can say my preference is different, and i don't like pvp in my MMOs while i can say you should not have that preference. And obviously i can agree or disagree with your opinion that the lack of pvp may lead to long term failure (given you define what failure means clearly). People need to understand the differences between preferences and opinions.
Ha, ha! He made you reply.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Obviously the term "better" is subjective to each individual. It has no specific gravity, no PH, no Viscosity, no weight displacement that can be objectively measured. I would argue one can't even measure "better" based upon popularity. Using that methodology a McDonalds Happy Meal would be infinately better then steak and lobster at the Ritz Carlton and "Dogs Playing Poker" beats out Monet or Michelangelo.
That's not to be elitist or pretend that any individuals subjective judgement is more valid then anothers (except mine which reigns supreme over all of yours). Just that any discussion is neccessarly going to be dictated by our individual tastes. Kind of a given.
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.
Actually no .. because you have not taken price into account. If a steak is going to be at the same price as a Big Mac, it would have won out by a huge margin.
All it says is that Big Mac at $5 (or whatever the right price) is "more popular" than a steak at $25 (or whatever the right price), which works quite well.
But again, this is not "better", this is "more popular", which can be measured objectively.
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).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
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.
You've been talking to my wife haven't you.
This seems nonsensical. Preferences are based on opinions, which you admit aren't all created equal. Yet you claim that preferences are all created equal. What if somebody says I prefer game A over game B. What if they haven't played game B? Is his preference EXACTLY the same as somebody who prefers game A over game B and has played both extensively? I'm not sure how you think this is a defensible position, if that's what you're saying.
I think you need to slow down a little bit and think about what I'm claiming and what you're arguing against. I'm not in this particular argument making the claim that MMOs are making a shift towards more solo content. I DO think that, but that's not what I'm claiming in the bit that you're quoting. I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content. Somebody else suggested that increasing the amount of solo content isn't inherently bad, or is even good (I don't remember what they actually said). I'm saying that increasing the amount of solo content in MMOs is moving away from what makes this genre different from other genres.
A preference is a like or a dislike. It may be based on someone's opinion of something, but if that opinion is incorrect it may not change whether they like whatever the subject is. Preferences are all equal, opinions are not.
Preferences and opinions are not the same.
I don't like brussel sprouts. That is a preference. I think they are bad for you, this is opinion and is incorrect. It will not change my preference and my preference is not wrong.
A preference is greater liking for one alternative over another or others. An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Regarding solo content. You stated, "I'm saying what's wrong with adding more solo content."
I'm saying that is incorrect. I'm saying the genre started with tons of solo content, the ability to solo a great deal, from beginning to end has been in the genre since day one. The genre started with a tonne of solo content, EQ moved away from that. Therefore adding more solo content is not mixing genre's, it is staying true to the MMO and specifically the MMORPG genre.
Well price isn't a factor in the "Dogs Playing Poker" vs Monet analogy....a print of one costs the same as a print of the other. Nor is the quality of the game itself the only factor in how "popular" it might be.....if that were the case companies wouldn't need to invest in advertising/marketing dollars for thier products....and the accessability of the platform they were released on would play no role (e.g. the number of people who had access to computers and reliable internat 20 years ago compared to today).
You are right that we can measure "popularity" objectively. However, the subject here is dealing with "better" not "more popular".....and that neccesarly is going to deal with matters of personal taste.
What are you talking about? Why are you talking about a general trend? I deliberately broke up the two questions because they are indeed two questions. The question is when was the best game released? If MMOs have been around for ~15 years, it's highly unlikely that the best games have occurred very recently, unless you believe there's a general trend upwards in the genre.
This is like the nostalgia arguments that people around here like to bring up. Nostalgia has nothing to do with me liking Mario 64 of Ocarina of Time. There are many games that I enjoyed before those games and I didn't have any problems with nostalgia then. What you're (not you necessarily) really saying is that the game that I feel nostalgia for represents the peak of my gaming enjoyment.... in other words, it's my favorite game.
Ugh again you're just confused. I'm not saying in order to dislike ANY older game they must just be inexperienced or unable to get over the dated graphics. But if your favorite game of all time is one that has literally just been released, you probably are pretty new to the world of video games. Unless you believe games are constantly getting better, holding unobjectionable things like technical limitations constant, then you pretty much have to believe that the best game of a certain genre or type probably isn't one that is brand spanking new.
Saying they will serve some people better and some people worse misses my point entirely. I said they will server their audience better. I'm saying niche products will server their audience better than mainstream products because niche products can find larger areas of overlapping preferences among their playerbase.
Finding common ground quite often DOES mean giving certain things up. It doesn't mean ALWAYS giving things up. You can have an MMO with only one player because the game is just poorly optimized or crashes every 2 seconds. By fixing those problems you're bringing in more people without necessarily alienating anybody. But going from hundreds of thousands of players to tens of millions of players isn't the same thing. At some point you have to go beyond just fixing unobjectionable problems and into the realm of design choices. At some point you start changing your game, not just fixing your game. That's where you're alienating people, at least a little bit. That's where niche products have the advantage.
No, a preference is choosing one thing over another. That's the definition and most importantly that's how it's always used in context on this site. So I'll ask the question again: If somebody says they prefer game A over game B, but hasn't played game B, is their opinion just as good or valid as somebody who says they prefer game A over game B and has played both quite a bit?
I'm not sure how you're still not getting this. When I say what's wrong with adding more solo content, it's assuming the premise is true, which is that the genre is adding more solo content. Again, it was in response to somebody who was essentially saying "so what??" to the claim that more solo content was being added to MMOs.
Whether or not that's actually happening is a different discussion. As I'm sure you're aware I'm always looking for a good argument so it's one I'm totally willing to have... it's just not this particular discussion.
Actually those neurological changes can be stopped. The natural changes a body goes through is dependent on the individual and how they go through life. You don't use it, you lose it.
This is the reason why you can go to a rave and see some 70 year olds dancing their backsides off at times, because they never STOPPED. They can still view life as they did when they were young because they never allowed themselves to stop viewing the world as something great, to be enjoyed.
I am in my 40s, I am still continually looking for new things, whats coming out around the corner in music, games, electronics, tech, energy. I do my damndest to learn something new every day, to laugh, to discover. I make it a point to find a new music band every week, either small unknown band in some city, or one from another country. Lately been stuck with Japanese bands, this past week I found Draft King(former members of Stereopony), week before that was Cyntia and before that was Flip.
Prime example, my father and my oldest sister. My father jumped at a chance to get a PC in the late 90s, always wanted one and had a great interest in it. He was near 70 at the time. Learned how to use one, wrote a few novels, created a bookclub, had contacts in many parts of the world and though was a little intimidated by it at first, loved it after a while. Very open person, loved to go out, would listen to modern music and said this to me after seeing Avatar in HD3D. "this is the biggest thing in film since the Wizard of Oz brought color".
My sister to this day looks at computers like its alien tech and is somehow going to kill her. She is in her 50s. Doesn't go out, thinks that parties are for kids, that there hasn't be REAL music since the 70s and watches nothing but re-runs of 30+ year old shows.
Age, its a number and has nothing to do with being old...old is a mindset, the way you view the world. I plan on dying young, no matter what my age is.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
I think quality is a measurable thing, just not realistically. I think if you had a large sample of unbiased people and had them play 2 games exhaustively over the course of like a year and then polled them on which game they enjoyed more and which game they thought was better, that would be a good indicator of which game is better. The problem is you can't conduct a test like that. So we're forced to argue about it on the internet. But that doesn't mean you can't argue about which game would win in a scenario like that if it were possible to conduct that test.
No a preference is not simply choosign one over another, it is a like or dislike of one thing over another. That is the defnition adn how it is always used in context on this site. The question you are asking now is not what was asked before. This question is about something choosing something when they are uninformed. Their opinion of game B is not as valid, however there preferences may be based on somethign else. AGain there is a difference between preference adn opinion.
I"m not sure how you are not getting this. You stated adding more solo content is mixing genre's. I'm saying it isn't. I'm saying it is staying true to the genre.
EDIT - people choose one thing over another for a great many reaons, often not because of preference. I prefer ice cream over vegetables. I know that vegetables are better for more, so more often than not I choose vegetables over ice cream.
I think you are engaged in a bit of a circular arguement though. A change from something that is "Good" to something that is "Less Good" is obviously something that any normal person would resist. However, what's "Good" in entertainment is entirely a matter of personal taste of the individual. What you are arguing is that what an individual likes (e.g. seems "good" to them) isn't actualy what they like.....or that there is some objectively "valid" and "invalid" way for an individuals tastes to be determined. That's pretty much nonsense.
The question was not what is the best game released. The question was what are the chances of each new game being the best game of it’s type ever released. Those are very very different questions.
I didn’t bring up nostalgia – and don’t want to get into it because I don’t think it is significantly relevant to our conversation.
I didn’t say you said they must be. In fact I said You sated it was likely because they haven’t experienced it or were turned off by graphics. I’m saying that is false premise. Yes there were many new people when WoW came out. But there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who played older games as well, and a great many of them left. Your premise being that if someone didn’t like older games it was likely because they haven’t experienced it or were turned off by graphics, is extremely inflated to the point of being false. There are many many many many other reasons.
I’m saying your wrong in that belief. They may serve it better, they may not
I’m saying you are wrong in that belief. They may serve it better, they may not.
I say quite often finding common ground doesn’t mean giving up, often it means adding things.
I think specific aspects of quality definately are, and from there you can draw a conclusion on which is a better game, but the conclusion gets shaky.
You can measure the responsiveness of a system, the bugs, the amount of detail, the amount of content (say different ways to level up, possibly the number of quests - although whether this is one peice of content of 1000 is debatale).
So definately are ways to measure quality.
But there is nothing to deal with.
You state your preferences. I state mine. Life goes on. It is not like anyone is going to change preference here.
I accidentily included the word opinion. I should have said preference. Among those two people, are both of their preferences just as valid? As you now admit, a preference isn't simply liking or disliking something, which is what you originally said. It's liking or disliking something over another thing. But if you have no experience in that other thing, how can you possibly say that's a valid preference???? How can you possibly act like his preference is equal to somebody else's who is completely informed?
I'll use your food analogy. My brother used to prefer mustard over ketchup. This was because he never actually tried ketchup. Once he had, he realized how wrong he had been to prefer mustard over ketchup. It's not like his taste buds changed and he now prefers ketchup over mustard, it was because he was ill informed. How can you possibly be of the opinion that all preferences are created equal?
Do you know what "adding more" means? It means there is now more than there was. The whole premise is that modern MMOs have had more solo content than their predecessors. That's the premise. You're saying you disagree with that premise. Fine. That doesn't change what I've said. Everything I said was based on the assumption that modern MMOs have indeed added more solo content. You saying they haven't, doesn't contradict what I said.
Well there are SOME aspects of quality that are objectively measurable.....does the game crash?.....does it meet it's hardware requirements..... does it meet it's design specifications.....how many bugs exist, etc? For the rest it's pretty much subjective.
What is a game supposed to do? If the designers say their game is suppose to be enjoyable to players and, in the case of MMOs, supposed to keep people playing, then you can have a discussion about which game is better. Including talking about the subjective sides.
The logical next step would be to measure revenue or aggregate scores from reviews, etc. My problem with those measurements is that there are many different aspects to why people play games. That's why I bring up the hypothetical poll of people who don't have a bias going into it and have played both games extensively. It's not a test that would be easy to conduct (if feasible at all), but again that's why it's a discussion. You can DISCUSS what games would win in that test.
This is wrong and I will tell you why. The games have changed over time and are different from what they were ten years ago. Embracing poor changes in my opinion doesn't lead to the conclusion older people are unable to accept change. What people like is subjective.
By the way, I really enjoyed World of Warcraft after I played Everquest for years. Why? I liked the game, I liked the changes. I could solo in this big world and do meaningful very fun group content in my opinion. I enjoyed the game mechanics, I loved the group dynamics, I loved crowd control, and strategy in dungeons.
Everquest changed while I was playing it, guess what for the worse. I didn't like the direction SOE took the game so I moved on to a new game which was different. I didn't like that Everquest had a POK lobby, I didn't like the theme the expansion took, etc. World of Warcraft too has changed in a way I do not like now. The selling of virtual items on top of a subscription, mindless group content that a potatoe could succeed at, pet battles.
So you think you are right but so wrong. I like new games and I like some changes but not all changes. We are going to switch your ice cream on the weekend with asparagus for the sake of change. If you don't like it, you must be old.
If they have never tried the other, it is not a case of a preferring one over the other. It is not a preference, no matter the person says, it is just an assumption.
Of course if the person had tried similar games, it could be a preference and would be just as valid. We are talking about something they like or dislike.
He was not wrong to prefer mustard, he never had the preference as far as taste is concerned. Maybe he liked the color better or the way it looked. As far as taste goes, he cannot prefer the taste of one over another he has not tasted both, so not a preference, but is an ignorant assumption.
And taste buds absolutely can change, or rather our sensitivity can change which affects how things taste.
And I’m saying that that premise is wrong, it is only adding more than SOME of their predecessors. That MANY of the predecessors had just as much. Everything I’m saying is that modern MMO’s have not added more than the ancestors, only than some of their ancestors, by all accounts AC had tons of solo content, as did UO. I know EQ and COH had tons of solo content. Arguably more than today’s games.
As to why older games are better, not seem, are better is because the mechanics of every game released in the last couple of years are slight deviations from the games we were playing in 1980 and earlier.
NOTHING NEW.
Sure, there are stories (usually shallow representations of Tolkien's world), and new payment models but the simple fact is games have not gotten better, they have in fact gotten much worse. When once upon a time we were given worlds to explore and adventure in, we are now given subpar choose your own adventure books. At least in those books, your choices mattered to the narrative. In games, no. Do they look pretty? Sure. But just like Hollywood and the bimbo down the street they might look purty but they have about as much depth as a piece of blank paper.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012