Followers 0

# Theory: players don't know what they want

## 72 posts in this topic

I've just been reading the Halo 4 forums and it's pretty sad how useless and unhelpful most of the posts are. Most people don't even seem to realize what actually makes a game fun and what ruins it. I know people have different ideas of what's fun and what's not, but some just don't seem to know any better

People ask for gimmicks and other things that actually start to take away from the gameplay and make it less enjoyable in the long run. As an example, assassination animations are kinda neat to watch sometimes but they are really just a big waste of time that leaves you vulnerable and your target open for a kill steal (and they are easy to do on accident). A sprint ability is another addition that can ruin games for a lot of different reasons. I might be wrong but I think that a majority of players would agree with me if they were just properly informed.

It's not just a problem with Halo players either. I played WoW for a long time and they kept adding stuff to make the game more "convenient" like flying mounts, dungeon group finder, bg queues from anywhere, 10x as many mailboxes, etc... Eventually, adding all that stuff really takes away from the experience. It used to be a real adventure that took time to do stuff, which made it more fun and much more rewarding. Now you can pretty much just reach max level is a couple weeks then sit in the auction house and play the entire game there. What fun is that? That would be like if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town. You might think 'yes no more annoying traveling!' But after beating the game in a few hours, you would realize that you missed out on a lot.

My biggest question is if anyone disagrees with me on these points, and why? And do other people think about this stuff
1

##### Share on other sites
This is a well known [url="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19"]phenomena[/url]
0

##### Share on other sites
I've seen this happen to many a game:

My most notorious example is runescape. I remember maybe 5 or 6 (or 8, after this long, I lose track) years ago I started playing this game, and I immediately found myself lost. And I said to myself "I hate being lost". But I played on for a few months because that's what my friends did. Then, I learned there was a map of the world. And I wasn't lost anymore, and I always knew where I was. Well, that took away the feeling of discovering a place I've never been before. I couldn't go anywhere new, because there was always a map. But at least I could experience the boredom of moving between cities.

Or not. After two years, I made use of teleportation. But at least I could still experience the troubles of walking to places between cities, because teleportation doesn't go there. Nope, fairy rings and boats. Everywhere is easily accessible. Did the game just disintegrate into teleport here, kill stuff, teleport there, kill stuff, teleport yonder, sell items, teleport, buy weapons, teleport, kill, teleport do this, teleport, teleport, teleport...

They even started putting in bonus experience weekends where people could reach level 99 with half as much toil. One can imagine how those who reached level 99 before this "feature" must feel about the new, less disciplined people who think reaching level 99 is a trifle.

"Why, when I was your age...."

What many people don't get is that more feeling goes into planning a vacation than being at the vacation.

[url="http://www.cracked.com/article_19376_5-scientific-reasons-your-idea-happiness-wrong.html"]http://www.cracked.c...ness-wrong.html[/url]

Quoth:
[left]But get this -- when doing [url="http://www.livescience.com/9815-vacations-boost-happiness.html"]a study of vacationers[/url][color=#000000][font=Georgia, serif][size=3], the happiest people were the ones [/size][/font][/color]in the weeks leading up to a vacation[color=#000000][font=Georgia, serif][size=3]. It was all about anticipation. [/size][/font][/color]Again[color=#000000][font=Georgia, serif][size=3], it looks like our brain rewards us more for working toward a goal than for actually arriving there.[/size][/font][/color][/left]

[left]The Law of Large Numbers plays an important role here. Not the statistics version. The pinball version.[/left]

[left]"Oh, if I get more points, that obviously means I'm a better player!"[/left]

[left]Pinball makers caught wind of people who think like that, which is almost everyone, and started giving 100 points for hitting a bell instead of 10. No, 1000. 10,000! A million! 9001! [/left]

[left]People cheer at the thought of getting more points, but later regret that most of the screen is wasted, covered by the 0's in the lower decimal places. There is a symbolic meaning to that, somewhere, hello Gatsby.[/left]

[left]Economic inflation is related to this.[/left]

[left]Going back to that article, our brain rewards us for pursuing rather than arriving. When people request and demand "convenience features", that is part of the pursual of the goal. But once that feature is put into place, there is much less pursuing and more arriving, which makes things less fun in the long run.[/left]
0

##### Share on other sites
LOL, I would say it's more like a fact than theory

That's why we are designers and they are players. If they knew what is good for the game they want to play we would be not needed anymore

Also, it is not only lack of understanding, frequently/sometimes they might have a hidden agenda (tripple true for multiplayer games), they want features that make their personal strategy more efficient. And they regularly forget what they proposed earlier and can say it is bad after you implemented it (althrough that's rarer, but still not very rare).

The thing on which you can trust players is interface in my opinion, if they say some button is better somewhere else they are usually right. Still you have to keep an eye on this since hardcore players forget how it was when they were newbies and might propose too complicated interface.
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='Telastyn' timestamp='1333640739' post='4928510']
This is a well known [url="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19"]phenomena[/url]
[/quote]

Phenomenon, yes. Another example is the Edsel, which was a car designed partially on market research results.
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='HelloSkitty' timestamp='1333642232' post='4928518']
My most notorious example is runescape.
[/quote]

lol same thing happened to my favorite game of all time, Ultima Online....after 3 years playing religiously they put in a parallel world that was a completely safe zone, in an open world pvp game. They also went down a path adding gardening and stupid spirituality crap. In a game where you could cut somebody's head off and feed it to your pet and take all their stuff as your own from their dead body... .....................................................
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='lmbarns' timestamp='1333691218' post='4928683']
lol same thing happened to my favorite game of all time, Ultima Online....after 3 years playing religiously they put in a parallel world that was a completely safe zone, in an open world pvp game. They also went down a path adding gardening and stupid spirituality crap. In a game where you could cut somebody's head off and feed it to your pet and take all their stuff as your own from their dead body... .....................................................
[/quote]

Whats is wrong with adding a completely safe zone?

If you prefer open world PvP, you can always stay in the original world. Players who dislike PvP can play in the parallel world, instead of going to another MMORPG.

I don't see how it affects your enjoyment of the game.
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333639018' post='4928500']

It's not just a problem with Halo players either. I played WoW for a long time and they kept adding stuff to make the game more "convenient" like flying mounts, dungeon group finder, bg queues from anywhere, 10x as many mailboxes, etc... Eventually, adding all that stuff really takes away from the experience. It used to be a real adventure that took time to do stuff, which made it more fun and much more rewarding. Now you can pretty much just reach max level is a couple weeks then sit in the auction house and play the entire game there. What fun is that? That would be like if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town. You might think 'yes no more annoying traveling!' But after beating the game in a few hours, you would realize that you missed out on a lot.

[/quote]

WoW's phenomenal success is often attributed to their willingness to eliminate the inconveniences that older games were unwilling to remove. Many things can be said about this but I'll keep it to two short points.

1) Time wasting is not equal to "fun" or "rewarding".

Using your Pokemon game example: 10 hours of real time walking across a barren landscape with no encounters just to get to the next town is neither fun or rewarding. Interesting, engaging and interactive challenges make a game more fun and rewarding than inconveniences or artificially wasting the player's time.

2) There are different kinds of "fun" or "rewarding" depending on your target audience.

When I was younger, I could spend 5+ hours daily playing games (at the expense of homework unfortunately). Nowadays, with a job and friends/family commitments, I am only able to play games irregularly and only for around 30-45 minutes at a time. If you're designing a game for the latter group, you need to ensure that they will be able to have fun in those precious 30-45 minutes, instead of spending hours travelling or looking for groups in game.
2

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1333723501' post='4928791']
WoW's phenomenal success is often attributed to their willingness to eliminate the inconveniences that older games were unwilling to remove. Many things can be said about this but I'll keep it to two short points.

1) Time wasting is not equal to "fun" or "rewarding".

Using your Pokemon game example: 10 hours of real time walking across a barren landscape with no encounters just to get to the next town is neither fun or rewarding. Interesting, engaging and interactive challenges make a game more fun and rewarding than inconveniences or artificially wasting the player's time.

2) There are different kinds of "fun" or "rewarding" depending on your target audience.

When I was younger, I could spend 5+ hours daily playing games (at the expense of homework unfortunately). Nowadays, with a job and friends/family commitments, I am only able to play games irregularly and only for around 30-45 minutes at a time. If you're designing a game for the latter group, you need to ensure that they will be able to have fun in those precious 30-45 minutes, instead of spending hours travelling or looking for groups in game.
[/quote]

Firstly, WoW's phenomenal success is due to a lot of things, but we won't get into that.

But anyway, you seem to be very misinformed about WoW. Aside from the fact that a 10 hour walk is obviously an extreme exaggeration, there are plenty of things to do when traveling in WoW, particularly while you're leveling. Mainly finding quests and their objectives, gathering resources, searching for rare enemies and chests, running into and fighting other players, aiding friendly players, and (not so much after the first playthrough) just exploring the terrain. Even assuming you know about all that stuff, then calling that a waste of time is simply your opinion. My opinion is that it was an adventure, and it looks like most people here agree.

Also if you don't like that style of game, or if you just want a game that moves quicker, then maybe you should try games like warcraft 3 or team fortress 2 or tetris or something. MMOs just take a lot of time to play and honestly, there isn't much to do in only 45 minutes except a little questing or couple battlegrounds/dungeons (even [i]with[/i] the conveniences)

Edit:
And I know that it's good business for them to attract players like you with those conveniences, but it makes me mad that they are essentially trading hours of my fun for 45 minutes of yours
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1333721862' post='4928783']
[quote name='lmbarns' timestamp='1333691218' post='4928683']
lol same thing happened to my favorite game of all time, Ultima Online....after 3 years playing religiously they put in a parallel world that was a completely safe zone, in an open world pvp game. They also went down a path adding gardening and stupid spirituality crap. In a game where you could cut somebody's head off and feed it to your pet and take all their stuff as your own from their dead body... .....................................................
[/quote]

Whats is wrong with adding a completely safe zone?

If you prefer open world PvP, you can always stay in the original world. Players who dislike PvP can play in the parallel world, instead of going to another MMORPG.

I don't see how it affects your enjoyment of the game.
[/quote]

Because the pvp zone became empty when everyone could go farm in complete safety.

When part of playing even a non pvp templates in that game was that occasionally you'd encounter murderers when outside of cities which added to every part of the game (there were counters, you could recall away, or run, and you could put a bounty on your killers head). There were bounty hunters who just hunted murderers to collect bounties for their heads.

With non pvp templates, when you were in a dungeon, or at a monster spawn and had built up loot, you had to make a choice whether to kill just one more before banking, or play it safe and bank. That entire process was taken away when you could farm until you were overweight, then bank.

Risk vs. Reward made some places hot spots while others weren't. Meanwhile tamers and "farming" characters could farm in complete safety aside from low end AI and that money was just as useful in either world. So first it ruined pvp, second it ruined the economy, 3rd it alienated the original "core" players of the game who watched it deteriorate in a completely different direction from what it a) started as and b) had been for years.

I was making real money playing in as a teenager because it was SUCH a great game, in game houses sold for hundreds of dollars, then they messed it all up and a new batch of sissy players was ushered in, all my friends left and eventually I did too.

Initially there were very popular websites which were basically the forefront to blogs where people tricked, scammed, death gated random players as "episodes", there was some real class to being outlaws.
0

##### Share on other sites
That's what I've always been saying but no one understands.

Players don't know what they want, they keep asking for stuff that's just going to ruin or unbalance the game.
They don't even know how to play the game to it's full potential..

Then we got the bigshot studios who are supposed to be professional game developers and game designers.
But what do they do? They listen to all the players who don't know whats best for the game.

So what do we get? unbalanced game where there's a new OP class every month and everything is simplified to the point that there's no challenge in the game anymore because they are listening to all the players who don't know how to play the game to it's full potential.

And what I've said is only the surface of this idiocy.
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333741472' post='4928887']
But anyway, you seem to be very misinformed about WoW. Aside from the fact that a 10 hour walk is obviously an extreme exaggeration, there are plenty of things to do when traveling in WoW, particularly while you're leveling. Mainly finding quests and their objectives, gathering resources, searching for rare enemies and chests, running into and fighting other players, aiding friendly players, and (not so much after the first playthrough) just exploring the terrain. Even assuming you know about all that stuff, then calling that a waste of time is simply your opinion. My opinion is that it was an adventure, and it looks like most people here agree.
[/quote]

The 10 hours walk exaggeration was meant to contrast your "[i]if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town[/i]" exaggeration.

It really depends on whether the game is designed for players to have an adventure while travelling. I have played an MMO in which it takes 30-60 mintues to travel from one city/town to another. It was a lot of fun because the travelling is the content, and the whole MMO was designed around overcoming challenges on your way from one place to another.

But if an MMO is about exploring dungeons for example, there is really no point in forcing players to spend 30-60 minutes travelling just to get to your intended content. Better to let the players instantly teleport to the entrance of the dungeon.

[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333741472' post='4928887']
Also if you don't like that style of game, or if you just want a game that moves quicker, then maybe you should try games like warcraft 3 or team fortress 2 or tetris or something.
[/quote]

Warcraft 3, Team Fortress 2 and Tetris are not MMORPGs.
1

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='lmbarns' timestamp='1333744206' post='4928895']

Because the pvp zone became empty when everyone could go farm in complete safety.

[/quote]

Oh wait, Trammel and Felucca weren't separate servers?! Players can hop back and forth?!

Wow, that is pretty terrible game design.
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1333746725' post='4928901']
[quote name='lmbarns' timestamp='1333744206' post='4928895']
Because the pvp zone became empty when everyone could go farm in complete safety.

[/quote]

Oh wait, Trammel and Felucca weren't separate servers?! Players can hop back and forth?!

Wow, that is pretty terrible game design.
[/quote]

Yea it would have [b]been completely fine if[/b] you had to play either style of server, but they made it so monster dropped "trammel stones" which you could put in the dirt and wait for a moongate to spawn 10 seconds later to travel to a clone of the existing world, but safe from being killed by other players..............and it opened up an entire clone of the existing map for people to place new houses on. Where previously houses had such significant value because all the placements were taken, just the few that decayed would fall as people quit, went on vacation, etc. I remember 1 group of IT guys paid $2,000 for a castle, real money, and it was seen as a safe investment because they could get most of it back due to the shortage of housing during the first few years, after enjoying it for a while as a guild. I sold a large marble house for$225, smaller houses for $100. So when the parallel clone safe world opened and twice as many people had houses, half the houses were in the safe world so people just stayed there. Heck, they could walk to their house carrying millions in gold without fear of being killed. Many people only went back to felucca to refresh their main house (which was the tits initially, but it's value slowly died just like the core population) Then the entire game then became sitting in a dungeon room with 20 other guys and 5 things to kill and everyone taking each others loot. Then they made it so only the person who did significant damage could loot so advanced people would run through and 1 shot each monster people were fighting and take the loot from newbies as a form of grief. 0 #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites [quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1333746186' post='4928900'] The 10 hours walk exaggeration was meant to contrast your "[i]if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town[/i]" exaggeration. It really depends on whether the game is designed for players to have an adventure while travelling. I have played an MMO in which it takes 30-60 mintues to travel from one city/town to another. It was a lot of fun because the travelling is the content, and the whole MMO was designed around overcoming challenges on your way from one place to another. But if an MMO is about exploring dungeons for example, there is really no point in forcing players to spend 30-60 minutes travelling just to get to your intended content. Better to let the players instantly teleport to the entrance of the dungeon. ... Warcraft 3, Team Fortress 2 and Tetris are not MMORPGs. [/quote] Except that I wasn't exaggerating at all. After you reach the max level, you can do or queue for everything else the game has to offer while standing in the AH, including dungeons, BGs, raids, arenas, RBGs, crafting, and trading. It's literally the same thing as if all the gyms were in one place and your opponents just came to you. And who decided what the game is "about"? I'm saying WoW used to be designed for battling other players out in the wild and getting into big fights over the control of quest areas and gathering spots, etc, as well as doing dungeons and raids. I think the fun involved in that is definitely worth the time spent traveling to the instance(which was also never anywhere near 30-60 minutes). So that's why I suggest that if you want a game that's more about queuing for short sessions with other players, then why play something with miles and miles of landscape that you never use or even see? Do you just [i]have[/i] to play something called an MMORPG? 0 #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites [quote name='lmbarns' timestamp='1333748705' post='4928909'] Where previously houses had such significant value because all the placements were taken, just the few that decayed would fall as people quit, went on vacation, etc. I remember 1 group of IT guys paid$2,000 for a castle, real money, and it was seen as a safe investment because they could get most of it back due to the shortage of housing during the first few years, after enjoying it for a while as a guild. I sold a large marble house for $225, smaller houses for$100.
[/quote]

I just wanna say it sounds like Ultima was a lot of fun and I really like the whole open world pvp, full loot, high risk style of game. I tried Eve online and a game called Darkfall because they both have similar concepts, but both have pretty big downsides that makes it so they take a really long time to get into and I just don't think they were worth it
0

##### Share on other sites
I forget what famous game designer said it, but one popular quote is, "[i]Ask a group of players what they want, and they'll give you a laundry list of [u]last year's[/u] most [u]over-hyped[/u] features[/i]".
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333751207' post='4928919']
[quote name='lmbarns' timestamp='1333748705' post='4928909'] Where previously houses had such significant value because all the placements were taken, just the few that decayed would fall as people quit, went on vacation, etc. I remember 1 group of IT guys paid $2,000 for a castle, real money, and it was seen as a safe investment because they could get most of it back due to the shortage of housing during the first few years, after enjoying it for a while as a guild. I sold a large marble house for$225, smaller houses for \$100.
[/quote]

I just wanna say it sounds like Ultima was a lot of fun and I really like the whole open world pvp, full loot, high risk style of game. I tried Eve online and a game called Darkfall because they both have similar concepts, but both have pretty big downsides that makes it so they take a really long time to get into and I just don't think they were worth it
[/quote]

Yes I played Darkfall and UO was fundamentally better in every way except darkfall has the best pvp gameplay if you leave your computer running 24/7 for a year macroing. But in no way was it nearly as wholesome an experience. UO had non-pvp templates that could make money and hundreds of skills, but you could only gain 700 skill points so you had to pick your 7 skills. It made it very diverse, and amazingly robust. Even on a non pvp bard character, you had a chance of winning if you used the area to your advantage.
UO was almost completely player skill based rather than grinded characters and gear. You could kill a maxed player with far less, it just took the right approach.
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='lmbarns' timestamp='1333778046' post='4928975']
Yes I played Darkfall and UO was fundamentally better in every way except darkfall has the best pvp gameplay if you leave your computer running 24/7 for a year macroing.
[/quote]

Eve online is pretty much the exact same way. Eve actually has time-based skill training where you just queue the skills to learn and they learn after the set amount of time. Each level 4-5 skills take weeks to learn, so you're stuck just waiting around for months before you can fly better ships
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333751207' post='4928919']
I just wanna say it sounds like Ultima was a lot of fun and I really like the whole open world pvp, full loot, high risk style of game. I tried Eve online and a game called Darkfall because they both have similar concepts, but both have pretty big downsides that makes it so they take a really long time to get into and I just don't think they were worth it
[/quote]

This is why conveniences are needed to make it easier for players to get into a game. To many players, "long traveling time" is equivalent to the big downsides that stopped you from getting into EVE.

When I last played EVE about a year ago, I remember the extremely long time it takes to travel from place to place. My friend and I wanted to meet up in-game and it took us more than 30 minutes just to do so.

[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333750714' post='4928917']
Except that I wasn't exaggerating at all. After you reach the max level, you can do or queue for everything else the game has to offer while standing in the AH, including dungeons, BGs, raids, arenas, RBGs, crafting, and trading. It's literally the same thing as if all the gyms were in one place and your opponents just came to you.
[/quote]

I don't see why this is "bad". If the intent of the game designer was to make a dungeon/BG/raid/arena/RBG/crafting/trading game, why stop players from playing the game by making them travel?

For example, if I make a game about dungeons, I would certainly let players instantly teleport to the entrance of each dungeons, instead of having to waste time traveling to them.

[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333750714' post='4928917']
And who decided what the game is "about"?
[/quote]

The game designers get to decide what the game is "about".

[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333750714' post='4928917']
I think the fun involved in that is definitely worth the time spent traveling to the instance(which was also never anywhere near 30-60 minutes).
[/quote]

If the activity is so fun, why are we stopping players from doing it via traveling?

[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333750714' post='4928917']
So that's why I suggest that if you want a game that's more about queuing for short sessions with other players, then why play something with miles and miles of landscape that you never use or even see? Do you just [i]have[/i] to play something called an MMORPG?
[/quote]

Because I like playing MMORPGs, the fun parts, without all the time wasting.
1

##### Share on other sites
Darkfall had slow travel with the exception of single use runestones that weren't cheap (thousands of gold), and took about 10 minutes to mark while making a loud humming sound other players could hear from miles away lol. It was pretty stressful when your recall bar was 95% done and you saw people running towards you off in the distance and you barely get away with under a second to spare. Lots of times they'd disrupt you from a distance and you'd have to fight or run.

The other thing in Darkfall, when you died in a fight, you were taken back to your bind location, which could be 30+ minutes away from the fight, so it was much different than in UO where you turned to a ghost and your team could resurrect you, re-equip you and you're back in the battle. In DF, when your teammates got picked off your team shrank. The sieges were epic, hundreds vs. hundreds in these intense battles for territory control.

The only time I like slow transport, is when there are real trade routes and regional banking. Otherwise it's a complete drain. But if you have to caravan supplies across the actual map, and fight off badguys, that can be fun to do as a guild, clan, group, whatever.

UO started where you had to carry the rune and have regs to recall or mark it, but no limit to rune stones and they cost like 15g. This was my favorite phase. When you died, you had to go remark the rune if you hadn't marked some backups beforehand. Eventually they made blessed books that held runes so you could carry hundreds of locations. It still wasn't terrible because they put a cooldown so you couldn't recall out of a fight instantly, you had to unflag for 90 seconds or something.

Darkfalls ship combat was hands down best gameplay dynamic on a computer ever. Here's one where we lost our ship to another clan [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olKjZ6bvoAY&list=UUuPUwB98LX-ir9PKx1aN6Mw&index=33&feature=plcp[/media]

And here we lost our ship to the damn kraken killing it [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZcPv0aNNi8&list=UUuPUwB98LX-ir9PKx1aN6Mw&index=59&feature=plcp[/media] @ 2:22

If they would have built out the depth the way UO was this would be the most amazing game ever, but instead it was grind fest mixed with player hacking that went on for over a year unchecked and numerous other critical flaws.

[color=#800000][b]Sucks cause it was an indie game started by a gamer, 35 people built an mmo over 7 years....strangled for cash, they couldn't get the level of polish you get from the big boys.[/b][/color]
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1333808716' post='4929037']
This is why conveniences are [b]needed to make it easier for players to get into a game[/b]. To many players, "long traveling time" is equivalent to the big downsides that stopped you from getting into EVE.

When I last played EVE about a year ago, I remember the extremely long time it takes to travel from place to place. My friend and I wanted to meet up in-game and it took us more than 30 minutes just to do so.
[/quote]

Actually you don't even get the conveniences in WoW until you explore each area on foot, level up enough and buy your mounts, etc, so it has nothing to do with getting into the game. And also, if you start at different starting areas on different factions, no duh its going to take you a long time to meet up. But after that, you don't really need to do a lot of long traveling in eve, just like 5-10 minutes max for some missions which you don't even have to accept. So I don't really know what you're talking about there, unless you are over exaggerating again

[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1333808716' post='4929037']
I don't see why this is "bad". If the intent of the game designer was to make a dungeon/BG/raid/arena/RBG/crafting/trading game, why stop players from playing the game by making them travel?

For example, if I make a game about dungeons, I would certainly let players instantly teleport to the entrance of each dungeons, instead of having to waste time traveling to them.
[/quote]

Well I already explained my opinion about why that is bad(my opinion). It's bad because I like the style of game where there is a lot of importance in traveling and a strong emphasis on world pvp. WoW [i]used[/i] to be like that, until the devs changed it by adding conveniences. Just to be clear I also like doing dungeons, BGs, etc, and I think they worked perfectly together with the experience of traveling and doing stuff on the way, like gathering, world pvp, quests, etc. I hate that they eliminated an experience for the long time dedicated fans in order to attract new players who won't play for a fraction of the time. I said that in my previous posts, and I understand your opinion, but I just wish the devs wouldn't cater to players like you when they've already got so many players like me

[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1333808716' post='4929037']
If the activity is so fun, why are we stopping players from doing it via traveling?
[/quote]

You aren't doing anything wrong, don't get the wrong idea. The devs are responsible, regardless of what players asked for

But for one, we can still travel if we want, but it's no longer efficient or effective. Now with flying mounts, teleporting, etc, there is basically no more world pvp which blows, and everything else you can do instantly. And if you don't, you'll be left behind by everyone else (particularly players like you).
0

##### Share on other sites
@Imbarns

Yeah that does look like a lot of fun. Videos like that are the reason that I started playing it in the first place. It's just a shame it took so long to get into the pvp
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1333833932' post='4929157']
I said that in my previous posts, and I understand your opinion, but I just wish the devs wouldn't cater to players like you when they've already got so many players like me
[/quote]

So now you're not arguing anymore that players don't know what they want, just that they want different things than you?

I somewhat agree with the notion that players often don't understand that what they are asking would actually be detrimental to the game, but it seems this thread has now derailed to discuss something else.
0

##### Share on other sites
[quote]
[b]Players Do Not Know What They Want, but They Know When It Is Missing[/b]

One of the biggest mistakes a designer can make at the start of development is to have a focus group with a bunch of gamers and ask them what they want to see in a new game. One could see this as an argument against focus groups, but that is not quite the point. Having playtesters is a very important part of game development. By playtesters, I mean people looking not for bugs in your game, but rather analyzing the gameplay and providing constructive feedback about it. A designer should have lots of people playing his game once it is at a stage in development where a majority of the gameplay can be judged. This may include using focus groups to obtain invaluable feedback about where the game is too challenging or confusing, but only once the game is ready for them to play.

On the other hand, having a focus group of gamers before a game has been created just to “bounce ideas around” is pretty much useless. Gamers are good, of course, at judging whether a game they are playing is any fun or not. They may not be able to explain in a useful way what exactly they like or dislike about a particular game, but they certainly know when they are having a good time, whether they are having their fantasies fulfilled, whether they are being appropriately challenged, or if a game gets them excited. When the game is failing to be any fun at all, gamers will be able to point that out to you but relatively few will be able to tell you what to do in order to fix the problem. Furthermore, just because gamers enjoy a wide range of finished games does not mean they are qualified to critique raw game ideas. Similarly, game ideas they come up with are not certain to be good ones. It is the rare person who can discuss the idea of a computer game and determine if is likely the final game will be fun or not. People with these skills are those best suited to become game designers. Not all game players have these skills, so when asked what sort of game they might be interested in playing, gamers may not really know what they want. But, as I say, they will be sure to tell you when it is missing from the final product.
[/quote]
Game Design: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition.
0

## Create an account

Register a new account