Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: On Bungie and the Value of the Player's Time | |
| Posted By: Ragashingo <ragashingo@me.com> | Date: 12/13/10 9:19 p.m. |
In Response To: On Bungie and the Value of the Player's Time (Cody Miller) Cody, your article is well written but I dislike it. I dislike it because it takes a constantly negative view of both game developer's intentions and game player's opinions. Some of what you say is indeed true, but you don't explore the issues, you just point out the negatives while barely giving any voice to the positives. I suppose I have two major points of disagreement with you, or at least I'll start with two. I expect we'll find more if this splinter of the discussion has legs. ;) 1. You give arcade gaming way too much credit going so far as to essentially say that arcade games were designed purely for fun and that console games aren't. I think this view is completely wrong because I don't believe any game is designed purely for fun. You yourself acknowledge this at the beginning of your article saying that arcade games were designed to hold player's attentions so that they would keep putting quarters in. Designing a game to influence players into paying to continue is not in any way making fun the only consideration of the game. The fact is all the types of games we are discussing here are at least partially designed to make someone a profit. I take it you think arcade games were designed MORE around giving players pure fun but to say things like "…And so, we see a shift away from the arcade philosophy, because fun is no longer the only consideration when designing games…" is blatantly intellectually dishonest. 2. I completely disagree with you that player progression systems are "by their nature directly oppositional to the creation of real fun." You seem to take the view that you can either have a complex in depth game, or you can have one that has a progression system. You seem to dismiss the idea that one game could feature both (like I think Reach does), and you seem totally unaware of the idea that some players find a game based around progression (like your WoW or free MMO examples) the best example of a fun in-depth game. Fundamentally I think it comes down to you arrogantly defining skill based, arcade like games as games with "real fun" and other types of games as wastes of time disguising themselves as fun. Together your flawed and contradictory opinion of the design intention of arcade vs. console games combined with your almost blind negativity towards player progression systems along with your near outright declaration that some types of games are in reality a waste of a player's time makes me wonder why I or any gamer should give you or your article the time of day. I urge you to open your eyes and recognize that some people don't value the types of games you value and that some people enjoy aspects of gaming that you don't enjoy. Maybe then you'll write an article that isn't so negative, one sided, and dismissive of other people's opinions.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |