FW: [MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)

[Freeman]

> From: J. Coleman [mailto:stormknight at alltel.net]

> PS - Just out of curiosity, what do you guys (and gals) consider the
> more newbie-friendly approach: game that can't be (easily) gamed,
> and therefore any achievement should mean more to the player, or a
> game that can be gamed, and therefore any achievement means less,
> but is much easier to do?

IMO, "the masses" or "the casual gamers", or whatever you want to call
them (not necessarily "newbies" or even really *casual* gamers really,
so much as just "not hardcore gamers"), want an easy game.

They want tons and tons of content that they can consume with
relatively little "challenge" (meaning obstacles put in place to slow
their rate of consumption).  Less "game", more "environment".

It seems logical that if 5% of your players are true foaming hardcore
gamers (the ones that like to play in Suicide Mode), then making 5% of
your content REALLY FREAKING HARD would be a good idea.

But from what I've seen, the casual gamers resent those challenges,
because they see it as content you're *denying* them.  Casual EQ
players resent the difficulty of EQ at high levels.  They pay their
$10 per month and they want the opportunity to be uber, too.
Nevermind that they could continue to play the exact same game (in
terms of gameplay, even!), only easier, at level 40.  They don't
*want* to be level 40.  They want to be level 60.  And they want it to
be as easy as it was at level 40.

If you add 10 more levels in an expansion pack and call it "The Die
All The Time and Suffer Horribly Hardcore *ExTrEmE EvErQuEsT*
Expansion Pack" then they'll want those levels too, and gripe about
how it's too hard, tedious, frustrating, and "not fun".

(And I think EQ has more than 5% GoP'ers, I just pulled that number
out of the air...).
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev