The Laws of Online Gaming Revisited...

[Zaphkiel]

It's only at the amateur level that some degree of 'smart play' makes one better at chess. It's the same with volleyball, basketball, softball, baseball, and the rest.

    Are you suggesting there is a MMOG that is NOT amateur level?

[Dark Vengeance]

It's only at the amateur level that some degree of 'smart play' makes one better at chess. It's the same with volleyball, basketball, softball, baseball, and the rest.

    Are you suggesting there is a MMOG that is NOT amateur level?

Yes.

Edit to clarify: The point is that people are playing MMOGs professionally, not that any particular game is "professional" compared to the rest as "amateur".

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Raph]

PKs, the skill problem, game vs world--ya know, if we can just run thru the instancing debate here, we might be able to wrap up all of online game design and go do something else this weekend.

[ajax34i]

So the important bit here is: games where playing a bit smarter provides an edge are fun and well-balanced.

You can't keep the edge, though, because others will learn and then play as smartly as you.  Especially with fansites on the web.  And the developers can't allow for smarts to infinitely shape gameplay, if I can word it that way.

So basically a "smarts" game doesn't really exist, because the playerbase learns the tricks of "playing smart" during beta, and they'll be optimally smart by the time the release rolls.

[tar]

Just to play Devil's advocate....then why are you playing a multiplayer game? Moreover, why play one where direct competition (not necessarily via PVP) is certain to take place?

Well, first of all I disagree that direct competition is certain to take place. While it can happen, in 4+ years of MMO gaming I have managed to avoid it just fine.

As to why I play multiplayer in the first place, I like co-operative gaming and it's kinda difficult to engage in that otherwise.

The reward is pride, the risk is shame.....always has been, always will be.

Not for me. For me, the reward has nothing to do with pride. It's about an entertaining way to spend time, often but not always with friends.

[Nyght]

PKs, the skill problem, game vs world--ya know, if we can just run thru the instancing debate here, we might be able to wrap up all of online game design and go do something else this weekend.

Are you taking notes? If you write this all down, you've got your next conference presentation eh? ;-)

Not very insightful for you but they are havin fun.

Let me just say instancing can be good and bad, depending upon the context. Now we can all take the weekend off to watch fireworks and eat some high calorie food. Except for you Italian and other foreigers. No rest for joo!

Have a safe 4th folks.

[Megrim]

When I lose at chess, or sports, I feel, with a good deal of certainty, that the other player played better than I did that day.  I might even learn something about the game in the process.  With MMOGs, when I lose, I feel, with a great deal of certainty, that the other person was a better exploiter/cheater/macroer/bigger catass than I am.

I quit playing chess competetively when I realized that the catasses would always outplay me. I didn't want to dedicate 15 hours a week to getting better at chess.

It's only at the amateur level that some degree of 'smart play' makes one better at chess. It's the same with volleyball, basketball, softball, baseball, and the rest. Dedicated hobbyists play five or six nights a week, and sometimes all-day Saturday and/or Sunday. They'll go to the batting cages a couple times a week. They work hard on their game. I can't compete with them; no amount of smart play, fitness, or agility is going to let me beat them.

But it's socially acceptable to play games outside all day; playing games inside all day is catassing.

So the important bit here is: games where playing a bit smarter provides an edge are fun and well-balanced. If an opponent plays a whole bunch, they can gain a ton of skill, to the point where they can easily smash an opponent. Some games, such as golf and go, provide a way for handicapping, which can make an imbalanced contest fun for both sides.

I think you are working off the assumption that talent is better than experience.
See, the situation you are describing is like playing a Paganini etude on the piano at three/quarter time. Yea, it's nice that you can play it, but don't show up at the international piano cometition and expect people to take you seriously unless you have a certain technical skill level that is a given to perform in the higher tiers.

Technical ability, aka catassing, is a prerequisite. This is why sports have fitness tests, etc.. Then, when everyone is on an equal level with the 'basics', is where the "smart play" comes in. There are many people who are as fit, as coordinated and as experienced as Figo. But there is only one Figo.

(not that this is relevant to the +skills catasses that mmogs tend to work for. Which is shitty game design, nothing more. There are plenty of smacktards that play CS - but i have the necassary skill with the AK to make their presence a non-factor, regardless of how much idiocy they can spew forth)

 - Meg

[Dark Vengeance]

Well, first of all I disagree that direct competition is certain to take place. While it can happen, in 4+ years of MMO gaming I have managed to avoid it just fine.

Direct competition != PvP. Direct competition takes place when yu sell wares as a craftsman, because others are doing the same. It takes place when you are hunting mobs, because KSing and such takes place. You are playing in a game where thousands of players share a common world, and they are directly competing for the same resources, whether they can PK each other or not. The only way to avoid direct competition is to never log in.

And if it's only been about 4 years in MMOGs, it's not as if you haven't had the choice to avoid it all along....so wtf are you complaining about?

As to why I play multiplayer in the first place, I like co-operative gaming and it's kinda difficult to engage in that otherwise.

There are dozens of PC and Console games that allow for co-op play...so why go MMOG?

Not for me. For me, the reward has nothing to do with pride. It's about an entertaining way to spend time, often but not always with friends.

I explain WHY multiplayer gaming is more satisfying than single player, and you reply by saying "not for me, I just find it more satisfying than single player gaming".....dig a little deeper. Why do your accomplishments in a MMOG mean more to you than accomplishments in an offline game?

People make an emotional investment in their character, that's why they get mad/annoyed when someone PKs them for no particular reason. Some would refer to it as "taking pride in their character"...it doesn't have to be this big machismo chest-thumping pride, as everyone seems to try and interpret the word. Simply put, do you give a shit about your character? If so, that denotes a degree of pride.

Getting your ass handed to you, whether you wanted to fight or not, is humbling. It's humbling in the same way getting pushed around by a schoolyard bully is humbling....because even if they don't make an effort to humiliate you, it takes a bit of your pride. For lack of a better term, the opposite of pride is shame.....it doesn't imply that you logoff and cry for 45 minutes after being PKed, or are ashamed to tell people about it. It's the simple "dying sucks" feeling we all get. I think it's amplified when another person does it on purpose...because AI has no choice but to attack you, it doesn't know any better.

But, hey, way to wave a dismissive hand at the entire point without really considering its validity.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[tar]

Direct competition != PvP. Direct competition takes place when yu sell wares as a craftsman, because others are doing the same. It takes place when you are hunting mobs, because KSing and such takes place.

I never said direct competition==PvP. If I'm hunting mobs and people are KSing, I go do something else or go elsewhere. It's easy to avoid, it's easy to choose to not compete.

So, I still disagree. It's more than possible to avoid direct competition.

And if it's only been about 4 years in MMOGs, it's not as if you haven't had the choice to avoid it all along....so wtf are you complaining about?

I don't know what gave you the impression I was complaining about anything. Go back and read my original post, it's about offering my alternative point of view, nothing more.

There are dozens of PC and Console games that allow for co-op play...so why go MMOG?

Because they're not Massive. New content isn't added, the games end and are finite.

I explain WHY multiplayer gaming is more satisfying than single player, and you reply by saying "not for me, I just find it more satisfying than single player gaming".....dig a little deeper. Why do your accomplishments in a MMOG mean more to you than accomplishments in an offline game?

No, you explained why multiplayer gaming is more satisfying for you. Your reasons do not apply to me. My 'accomplishments' don't mean anything in either genre. They're just games, entertaining ways to pass the time.

But, hey, way to wave a dismissive hand at the entire point without really considering its validity.

I think you're taking this way too seriously/personally. I have considered the validity of the point and I'm not dismissing it. I'm just saying it does not apply to everyone.

[Dark Vengeance]

I never said direct competition==PvP. If I'm hunting mobs and people are KSing, I go do something else or go elsewhere. It's easy to avoid, it's easy to choose to not compete.

So, I still disagree. It's more than possible to avoid direct competition.

Again, players are competing for the same resources within the game world in many instances. Don't confuse competition with confrontation....a lot of the time, competition is good spirited and not hostile in any way. It's buying the last 50 black pearl before the other guy in the shop does, it's solving the puzzle first, it's getting to the verite vein before the other miners when the ore respawns.

Competition is not completely avoidable. Confrontation is.

I don't know what gave you the impression I was complaining about anything. Go back and read my original post, it's about offering my alternative point of view, nothing more.

That "alternative point of view" matches the predominant paradigm within the MMOG genre. People that don't like PvP or an overtly confrontational game have those options...so I guess I don't grasp the need to express that opinion just because someone suggests the opposite.

Because they're not Massive. New content isn't added, the games end and are finite.

So why not a game like NWN where new content is added both by bioware and created by the community?

No, you explained why multiplayer gaming is more satisfying for you. Your reasons do not apply to me. My 'accomplishments' don't mean anything in either genre. They're just games, entertaining ways to pass the time.

I'm calling bullshit on that one. You're once again dismissing the point by simply glazing the whole thing over.

There are plenty of entertaining ways to pass the time, there is a reason you choose gaming....and for choosing multiplayer gaming....and for choosing the MMOG genre. There is a reason you invest time and effort into building a character, and why you take care to keep that character alive and growing.

The accomplishments don't mean anything to the world, it's not as if we're curing cancer here....I get that. But I'm calling bullshit that hitting a level, or getting an uber-goodie, or getting killed in-game don't mean anything TO YOU. Otherwise it falls into the category of "take it or leave it at the first sign of aggravation"....which in the realm of MMOGs doesn't keep someone playing and paying for 4+ years.

Fuck, just even based on the notion that you pay additional money to stay subscribed to your chosen MMOG, and maintain your character, you're indicating that it holds more worth than an offline game. My question still stands....WHY does it mean something to you? And WHY does it mean more to you in a multiplayer game than an offline one?

It's not personal, and I'm not taking it seriously at all....I'm just amused that you're regressing to arguments like "it's just a game" in the same thread where you talk about a dislike for PvP. If it's just a game, and you can take it or leave it....getting killed by a PK should be no big deal.

I'm just amazed at watching people try to deny that after all the time and effort they pour into their characters that they don't ever take some measure of pride in that character. My mom cooks a meal and takes a measure of pride in it...that's 20 minutes. My little niece colors a picture and takes pride in it...that can be 5 minutes. You're trying to tell me that after logging 100+ hours of various inane and tedious tasks to build your MMOG character that you take NO pride in it? None at all? Give me a break.

When you have pride in something, an assault on that is an assault on that pride. When you fail to defend it adequately, that pride takes a shot to the nuts. That small annoyance is what I'm referring to when I talk about shame. That shame is why people dislike losing. It's why failure isn't as enjoyable as success.

But please, go ahead and explain to me again how this all doesn't apply to you and your personality.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Sky]

I'm calling bullshit that hitting a level, or getting an uber-goodie, or getting killed in-game don't mean anything TO YOU. Otherwise it falls into the category of "take it or leave it at the first sign of aggravation".

Levels and foozles mean nothing to me. If anything, I dislike them, because they are barriers to my idea of fun.

But then, I don't play EQ clones, either.

I'm just amused that you're regressing to arguments like "it's just a game" in the same thread where you talk about a dislike for PvP. If it's just a game, and you can take it or leave it....getting killed by a PK should be no big deal.
 

Yeah, it's because I was so invested in my miner that made me upset when someone pk'd him. It was in no way the hassle of watching the pk gripe that I only had ore and a couple shovels on me, losing all the mining time I had just put in, then having to find a healer to raise me, go buy or get some new shovels and then look for a spot that's not mined out or camped by pks, only to have the whole thing repeat itself again in a half hour. No, not that at all.

Talk about missing the point.

You're trying to tell me that after logging 100+ hours of various inane and tedious tasks to build your MMOG character that you take NO pride in it? None at all? Give me a break.

I don't know if he's telling you that, but I am.

Please try to understand not everyone thinks or feels the same as you.

That shame is why people dislike losing. It's why failure isn't as enjoyable as success.
 

YOU may feel shame. That doesn't mean everyone does. Is this so hard to grasp?

[RipSnort]

I'l get up and stomp around the room cursing when I get rolled. I'll also stand up in my boxers, rubbing my buddha belly, yelling "It's Taco Pizza time!" when I win one. I want the game to pull at my emotions.
What I can't stand is finding out the competition is exploiting the mechanics or outright cheating by using third party software. If I can't be competitive because my opponent has perveted the rules of the game then my desire to play is lost.
Like moving the chess pieces when your opponent is off taking a leak or sneaking around behind the bleachers to slip into the endzone I can't fathom the gratification of winning that way.
Even if your honest and don't use exploits you have to at least research and understand them to remain competitive. When I have to invest that extra effort to for "Wins" in the game the enjoyment get's lost.

I'd love to see a game that "hid the numbers". They'd still be there but the player is a few layers removed from them. No xp #'s scrolling by, level bars showing progress or con colors. The players actions still raise and effect his skills but are only evident by the new feats they perfom in the game. Now walking down a road encountering another player you'll have no idea if he's a grand master or a newb, vice versa for him. It would make random killing a much higher gamble . Of course Running full steam into a tree or the side of a building should knock you silly and leave you dazed for a few moments. Also player's mounts should drop turds so my tracker can pick up their trail.
I know none of the above can be realized but one can dream can't they?

[Snowspinner]

We need one more page before I can tell schild and Snowspinner how they're all wrong.

Typical of Raph. Long treadmill, tedious advancement, and when you get to the end there's no reward.

=)

[Azaroth]

Haha. Zing.

[Dark Vengeance]

Levels and foozles mean nothing to me. If anything, I dislike them, because they are barriers to my idea of fun.

The point is about advancing through your objectives toward your personal goals. Getting past those barriers obviously holds some value to you.

Yeah, it's because I was so invested in my miner that made me upset when someone pk'd him. *snip*

It's a setback....being PKed while mining is a setback to your advancement toward some sort of goal.

Why would that setback matter if there is no personal investment in trying to accomplish something? Maybe it's as simple as developing you character to the point where you consider gameplay "fun", maybe it's earning enough gold to buy a tower, maybe it's getting a special item or title.
 
You're saying the annoyance stems from the PITA of getting back to where you were and all the wasted time you spent trying to reach some objective, only to have it all snatched away from you.

Think a step further....why is that objective important to you? Most likely because it leads to another objective, and another, until it leads to something you want to achieve and/or do.

For example : Mining -> Ore -> Ingots -> Armor -> Equipment for your fighter -> the ability to hunt more efficiently -> making gold -> buying a guildstone -> starting a guild.

Now in this example, are you telling me there is no emotional investment in achieving that goal of starting a guild, and no pride in accomplishing that goal?

You can't tell me that in all the time you've played MMOGs you've never had anything you wanted to accomplish. I don't buy it.

I don't know if he's telling you that, but I am.
Please try to understand not everyone thinks or feels the same as you.

*snip*

YOU may feel shame. That doesn't mean everyone does. Is this so hard to grasp?

I think you're so caught up on the specific terms "pride" and "shame" that you are ignoring the concept at play here.

Do you derive any sense of satisfaction when you achieve successes in-game? Do you have any sense of dissatisfaction when you experience setbacks?

I find it pretty fucking hard to believe that you are completely apathetic about the successes and/or failures you experience in-game...and that you don't experience even the slightest emotional reaction to either. You're treating emotional reactions as if they are binary....they aren't. People experience them in varying degrees, even you.

Stimulus -> response, and whatnot.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

Not everyone has an ACHIEVER mentality, which is exactly what you are describing.

Some people just actually like the act of mining/crafting/killing, etc. Sure, you can try to stretch it to mean they are trying to achieve something, but the manner and attitude with which they approach that ahievement varies greatly. Thus, we have achiever types, explorer types, and all sorts of types Bartle never classified.

Not every achievement in-game is an achievement in the mind of a non-achiever. For some, it's the journey, not the destination.

[Sky]

It's like talking to a doorknob.

For some, it's the journey, not the destination.

See, it's not so hard to understand.

Or maybe it is. I don't care, really. I'm done repeating myself to someone who obviously shows no sign of trying to understand another viewpoint.

[Snowspinner]

Non-achievers don't count. They switch games too much, and don't buy multiple accounts, so why the hell would you want to cater to them?

[Furiously]

Non-achievers don't count. They switch games too much, and don't buy multiple accounts, so why the hell would you want to cater to them?

Hmmm - cause there are a shitload more of them then achievers?

[Joe]

I'd wager a guess the majority of MMOG players are achievers, actually, followed closely by socializer/explorer. I'm one of like 10 killers who aren't achivers, so it's pretty easy to tack killer onto achiever on some level. Now, the reality is a powergamer/multi-account holder is pretty much the king loon in a category of nuts, and sets the bar for all the crazies below him. Since it's a large population, it makes sense to design for the guy who's holding sway over all the "regular" achievers who occasionally lapse into a powergaming mode.

That said, fuck that noise. If the journey's not fun, the reward isn't worth the effort. But good luck keeping both plates spinning.

[Dark Vengeance]

Killers take pride in their PvP ability.

Socializers take pride in their position within the community, or their chosen subcommunity (e.g. a player-town or guild).

Explorers take pride in displaying their knowledge of the game and making new discoveries.

Achievers take pride in the more tangible accomplishments....stats, skills, levels, wealth, etc.

The concept applies all around....substitute the phrase "derive satisfaction from" for "take pride in" if it doesn't suit you.

You guys are attacking the concept as if I am pulling it out of my ass....refer back to the Laws:

Baron’s Law
Glory is the reason why people play online; shame is what keeps them from playing online. Neither is possible without other people being present.

I'll even agree with schild's assessment that glory is the goal....pride (or the ego) is why people pursue it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing....just a simple reality. Just as the point that people have emotional reactions to events in the game because they have an emotional investment IN the game. The reactions are proportionate to the investment.

To make a comparison to golf, the occasional great shot is what makes you love the game...the shots in between are what make you hate the game. The worst tragedy in the game is hitting a hole in one with no witnesses, yet you hope nobody notices when you duff your drive and send the ball a whopping 5 feet.

In other words, the glory comes from having others around to see (or share in) your triumphs, the shame comes from having others around to see your mistakes.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Snowspinner]

Non-achievers don't count. They switch games too much, and don't buy multiple accounts, so why the hell would you want to cater to them?

Hmmm - cause there are a shitload more of them then achievers?

And there's a shitload more people who don't play MMOGs at all. Attempts to recruit them haven't worked either.

[HaemishM]

To extend your metaphor to golf, some people just play golf to drink beer with their buddies. Scores don't matter, and are often forgotten 10 minutes after the game is over. The hole in one is a memory, a story that gets told for years.

I think people who aren't achiever types play MMOG's (and really any games) as a means of creating a story of their own to tell to someone else. Like most of the things we do in life, we all just want to tell a story that someone else would want to hear.

[Rasix]

DV, you're making a lot of broad generalizations lumping everything that wiggles into categories.  

What if I just play to have fun. I play to amuse myself and find Bartle's categorizations a bunch of horse flop.  I've adapted my style of play all over the spectrum of killer, achiever, explorer, etc, just to enjoy a game.  In UO alone at times I was a killer, socializer and at a point achiever.  But at no point did I think to myself, "I'm a killer, I must murder those to increase my pride and decrease my shame in this well done bartle experiment" (Ok, I'm over doing it just a tad here.)

To make a comparison to golf, the occasional great shot is what makes you love the game...the shots in between are what make you hate the game. The worst tragedy in the game is hitting a hole in one with no witnesses, yet you hope nobody notices when you duff your drive and send the ball a whopping 5 feet.

In other words, the glory comes from having others around to see (or share in) your triumphs, the shame comes from having others around to see your mistakes.

Ahh a golf example, nice that I can relate coming from a golfing family.  

What if you're just playing golf.. I know this will sound odd..... for fun!  Yes, playing a sport because you actually enjoy hitting the ball and getting outdoors away from the squables of real life for a bit (this applies to gaming also, "duh").

I used to get really mad playing golf.  I'll admit to breaking my 3 iron after duffing a shot in a tournament.  Now, that I play more sparingly, don't practice at all, and don't even keep score anymore, I find it difficult to get angry.  Sure I'll let out an occasion "fuck" which I slice the ball off into a ravine (hey, it cost me money).  

When you're not playing for the win, and just enjoying the process of being there and striking the ball, you're pretty much liberated from all of the bullshit categories people try to lump you in.  Pride no longer matters, neither does ego.  I guess it's kind of like being Chevy Chase in Caddyshack (sans the talent).

I think if COH is any indication and some of the general vibe around here, we're starting to care less about Bartle, about goals, and about really dumb laws like Baron's there.

[Dark Vengeance]

You've just described the way I play golf. I may not give a shit about my score when I duff on the 8th tee, but it doesn't make it any less infuriating at the time...particularly with your buddies there to see it. Even if nobody says a word about it, it is humbling. People don't like to be humbled.

With that in mind, most folks don't want a story that contains the phrase "so after I got rezzed...." too often. Or a story where they were a social outcast (not on purpose), or they couldn't achieve their goals, or they repeatedly made stupid mistakes, or they tried to kill something and failed.

People want to succeed in what they try to do, and they want others to share in that. That's why they play online. People don't like to fail, and they don't like it when people see them fail (or even worse, cause them to fail). That makes them dislike playing online.

And yes, that applies even if you are playing "just for fun".

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Edit: added the last line for Rasix's benefit.

[Rasix]

Have you been taking lessons from Sloth? Egads man, I'd like to reply but why bother.

[Djamonja]

We need one more page before I can tell schild and Snowspinner how they're all wrong.

Typical of Raph. Long treadmill, tedious advancement, and when you get to the end there's no reward.

=)

That's interesting since I consider UO and SWG to have about the shortest treadmills and least tedious advancement I have come across in an MRPG (least tedious because it is short). I actually associate Raph's games with less treadmill than normal, and an attempt to make less developed characters more competitive with fully developed characters so that you don't need to play for 100 hours a month to keep up with the people who do. I guess I missed the "reward at the end" in the other MRPGs too.

[schild]

That's interesting since I consider SWG to have about the shortest treadmills and least tedious advancement I have come across in an MRPG (least tedious because it is short).

And no endgame. So, whats the f'in point?

[Azaroth]

Nobody said it was entirely accurate. Just funny :)

[nesta]

To extend your metaphor to golf, some people just play golf to drink beer with their buddies. Scores don't matter, and are often forgotten 10 minutes after the game is over. The hole in one is a memory, a story that gets told for years.

If your only point is that people play for reasons other than simple achievement - ok, point taken. Golf isn't a very good metaphor for MMORPGs though for many reasons. For one thing golf is a socially acceptable thing to talk and tell stories about - even with non-players. This is a huge hurdle MMO's have yet to cross. I defy anyone on these boards to sit down at a dinner party and in the midst of mixed company and begin regaling the table with tales of your EQ conquests without being branded a social leper. Moreover golf is about individual's skill with a golf club. MMOs are about developing mostly non-transferable skills within a developer defined ruleset and having copious amounts of time to invest. The closest metaphor is the course - the MMO is the course we decide to play.

Unfortunately this doesn't in the slightest advance the discussion of whether Raph's laws are any good or not. For my part I come down more in the Brad McQuaid camp and agree with him that the primary goal of a MMO developer is not to create some social experiment in a virtual space, but to craft a peice of entertainment. The fact that you have to build a virtual world before you can create the purpose for the virtual world (the game) seems to me self evident. As someone else has already said, the game is the thing.

Besides, online or virtual communties will always fail to emulate real relationships. If this is true, then why spend so many resources in a futile endevor? Perfect the current paradigm, stabalize the market and hope for slow incremental change. In the end, just keep the players happy.

[dogles]

What if you're just playing golf.. I know this will sound odd..... for fun!  Yes, playing a sport because you actually enjoy hitting the ball and getting outdoors away from the squables of real life for a bit (this applies to gaming also, "duh").

Then why play golf at all? Why not just go outside and hit a ball with a stick? What's the hole for?

The fun comes from playing the game. You may not be playing to win, but you're still playing. If the game is broken, it will be mildly to greatly frustrating, depending on what you're trying to get out of it.

I used to get really mad playing golf. I'll admit to breaking my 3 iron after duffing a shot in a tournament. Now, that I play more sparingly, don't practice at all, and don't even keep score anymore, I find it difficult to get angry. Sure I'll let out an occasion "fuck" which I slice the ball off into a ravine (hey, it cost me money).

Ok, would you have less fun if everyone else got to take two turns for every one of yours? Or if you had to use a baseball bat when everyone else got a golf club? I'm willing to bet you'd have more fun playing something else at that point, even if it's "just for fun".

I think if COH is any indication and some of the general vibe around here, we're starting to care less about Bartle, about goals, and about really dumb laws like Baron's there

You want a game to play without goals? Why not go play There or Second Life or something? Games need goals, it's mandatory.

dan

[Rasix]

Major edit: You know what, you completely missed the point and I'll just leave it at that.

[Snowspinner]

I agree that games need goals. I'd argue, though, that socializers, explorers, and killers aren't really playing the game as such. They're playing with the game, certainly, or, perhaps, playing parallel to the game, but I don't think the game is the fundamental thing they'r ereally engaging with.

[dogles]

Please tell me you're not that dense; that was one of the most nonsensical replies I've ever gotten to one of my posts.

Let's see if you can figure this post out. I'll try to be more verbose.

I was simple stating the fact that you can't make blanket observations about why people play games.

You can't make a LOT of blanket observations about why people play games, but you can make some. People play games to have a fun experience - that's a blanket observation. A game is a collection of rules that dictate how player(s) can progress towards goals. The series of actions that a player takes while moving towards those goals is the experience of the game, and the experience is where the fun is derived from. Thus, a "fun" game is something that has goals where the experience towards reaching those goals is fun. Everything I just said should be self-evident.

The reason you'd play golf in the first place, rather than just standing on the lawn and talking, is because you want to have fun playing golf. The game of golf would not be fun if it did not have goals. Thus, if people play games to have fun, people play games because there are goals.

Bartle's types are just a way of classifying goals in games into broad catagories. Players shouldn't necessarily care about them, but developers probably should.

I wasn't saying we should have games without goals, without a purpose, without any resemblence of motivation.

Um.

I think if COH is any indication and some of the general vibe around here, we're starting to care less about Bartle, about goals, and about really dumb laws like Baron's there

"We're", as in including yourself, correct?

You may not be playing for the express purpose of reaching the goals put forth by the game, or even reaching any goals at all. But without those goals being there, it's just a fancy chat room. If the means provided to approach those goals suck, it's a bad game, you'll find something else to play. Soo... game developers should strive to make goals that are fun to reach for a variety of people. That's what Bartle's types are about, and partly what Baron's law is about.

dan

[dogles]

I agree that games need goals. I'd argue, though, that socializers, explorers, and killers aren't really playing the game as such. They're playing with the game, certainly, or, perhaps, playing parallel to the game, but I don't think the game is the fundamental thing they'r ereally engaging with.

Depends on the game, really. Experiences that are considered fun to some people but are largely disruptive to the group can fall out of a game unintentionally. But there are games out there that attempt to cater specifically to the goals of socializers, explorers, and killers.

dan