[MUD-Dev] Homogeneity and choice (Was DESIGN: Why do people like weather in MMORPGs?)

[John Buehler]

Mike Rozak writes:
> John Bueler wrote:

One time you get for free.  Not two.  That's "Buehler"  :)

>> As with any action that the player has an opportunity to engage
>> in, I'd encourage any designers to examine the simple task of
>> changing gear to make it as entertaining as possible - if they're
>> going to retain it as a regular action for a player.

> I agree in theory, except I can concoct examples where individual
> parts of an experience are not fun, but they contribute to the
> whole. For a silly example: Logging into a virtual world is not
> the least bit fun or entertaining, but without it, the rest
> wouldn't be possible.

I understand the distinction.  As I see things, the question is one
of whether the activity adds to the overall enjoyment of the
experience as it is, or if the overall experience would be more
enjoyable if the activity was restructured.  To use your 'silly'
example, would it detract from the fun of the game to make logging
into a virtual world fun?  Would it add?  I assume that it would
add.  Ergo, it should be made more enjoyable when development
resources permit.  Ideally, it should just be designed as a fun
experience.  Certainly its 'unfun' aspects should be minimized.

>> I don't believe this to be a case of attention spans, nor of
>> patience.  I believe this to be a case of giving a customer value
>> for their money.  If customers are unhappy that the pass is
>> blocked, then somehow the game's entertainment has flaws in its
>> structure.  By definition.

> In WoW I have a 16th level character and I'm unhappy that I can't
> wander anywhere I want in the world. I understand that the
> designers put the monsters in it for both fun (although I don't
> find them too fun) and as a challenge to slow me from reaching my
> goal to world exploration too quickly.

If you're unhappy at the experience you get from an entertainment
venue, then it's flawed.  It's that simple.

That doesn't mean that it's irrevocably busted and useless.  It only
means that it's flawed.  It can be improved upon.  When the
improvement comes, it will be called either the next incremental
step in gaming or the next generation in gaming.  Either way, it
would seem to be worth keeping an eye on the flaws so that something
better can be created.

I'm simply not a believer in the theory that sometimes entertainment
has to have lows so that the highs can have impact.  We HAVE the
lows in our real lives.  That's why we look for entertainment.  To
seek a complete set of lows and highs from a game suggests that
something is out of whack.

JB
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev