cRPG and Emergent Gaming (And Fun): Where It Went Wrong

[Kafein]

As a peasant :

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kaoklai]

People are getting way too hung up on a few examples that Smooth used and missing his actual point about emergent gameplay (which he has stated several times in subsequent posts, and which morons continue to ignore).  The discussion in this thread of old cRPG good/bad, griefing fun/unfun is so absurdly reductionist a response to the OP that my opinion of the general cRPG forum posters' intelligence has actually decreased, a phenomenon I hitherto thought impossible. 

[Kafein]

People are getting way too hung up on a few examples that Smooth used and missing his actual point about emergent gameplay (which he has stated several times in subsequent posts, and which morons continue to ignore).  The discussion in this thread of old cRPG good/bad, griefing fun/unfun is so absurdly reductionist a response to the OP that my opinion of the general cRPG forum posters' intelligence has actually decreased, a phenomenon I hitherto thought impossible.

We discuss what we think is wrong, and ignore what we agree about.

If you are shocked by this, you probably never had a conversation with a human being prior to this.

[Azlanek]

We discuss what we think is wrong, and ignore what we agree about.

If you are shocked by this, you probably never had a conversation with a human being prior to this.

Letting the other person assume what you agree and don't agree with is not an efficient way of communicating with others. Taking others' needs, such as letting them know what you mean, is also a part of manners, which should be considered when making conversation with another. In not following them, you might risk angering the other person and drift the conversation from its original purpose.

[Rumblood]

Naturally most of my friends immediately began thinking of ways to deceive and grief people in-game

People are getting way too hung up on a few examples that Smooth used and missing his actual point about emergent gameplay (which he has stated several times in subsequent posts, and which morons continue to ignore).  The discussion in this thread of old cRPG good/bad, griefing fun/unfun is so absurdly reductionist a response to the OP that my opinion of the general cRPG forum posters' intelligence has actually decreased, a phenomenon I hitherto thought impossible.

We are what?

[Azlanek]

We are what?

Smoothrich was talking about a completely different game that has nothing to do with cRPG. Here, let me quote it for you:

I understand how that pertains to cRPG, but I think it's pretty funny recalling chadz's brief explanation of the concept for that space sandboxy game they were thinking about.  It was basically nothing but a template to grief.  Of course some people would play for the sake of building stuff and flying around or whatever with friends, but he talked a lot about permadeath and an open-ended style of playing.

Now in this light the statement suddenly makes more sense:

Naturally most of my friends immediately began thinking of ways to deceive and grief people in-game

[partyboy]

Smooth hits it all pretty much dead on and much more eloquently than I could.  The game had allure because it had so much sandbox potential, but it's suffered death by a thousand tiny nerfs.  A lot of people are starting to take a step back and see the move away from fun as a whole and are wondering why we still play.  I'm still finding gimmicks but the multi system killed things like roleplaying a farmer/ect because of "leeching".  I can barely be a pacifist anymore without people screaming for blood. 

[Rumblood]

Smoothrich was talking about a completely different game that has nothing to do with cRPG. Here, let me quote it for you:

Now in this light the statement suddenly makes more sense:

Naturally most of my friends immediately began thinking of ways to deceive and grief people in-game

It illustrates a a major motivation for most of his friends. Deception and griefing. Many of the items he wants back were removed for that very reason.

[Kafein]

Letting the other person assume what you agree and don't agree with is not an efficient way of communicating with others. Taking others' needs, such as letting them know what you mean, is also a part of manners, which should be considered when making conversation with another. In not following them, you might risk angering the other person and drift the conversation from its original purpose.

I agree wholeheartedly, although what I depicted does happen very often on the internet, especially when there are dozens of people involved like in a forum.

[partyboy]

Maybe people would stop complaining if there were three set classes and only a small selection of weapon types for each.

[Tindel]

Smooth hits it all pretty much dead on and much more eloquently than I could.  The game had allure because it had so much sandbox potential, but it's suffered death by a thousand tiny nerfs.  A lot of people are starting to take a step back and see the move away from fun as a whole and are wondering why we still play.  I'm still finding gimmicks but the multi system killed things like roleplaying a farmer/ect because of "leeching".  I can barely be a pacifist anymore without people screaming for blood.

Maybe,  but to many of us its a competetive online pvp/deathmatch game. And the "sandbox" stuff ruins the experience.

I think this is a big divider in how the community percieve the game. And some are bound to be dissapointed no matter what.

[Jarlek]

Maybe people would stop complaining if there were three set classes and only a small selection of weapon types for each.

Only if the set classes changed depending on if which (in-game) team you were in. So Blue team has different class options than Red team etc.

Then we could make the teams culture based too! One being archer focus, another cavalry focused etc. This is genious!

Oh, but we would also have to limit the equipment people can spawn with. I say it should depend on how well you did the previous round.

(click to show/hide)

We are explaining native.

[Kafein]

Only if the set classes changed depending on if which (in-game) team you were in. So Blue team has different class options than Red team etc.

Then we could make the teams culture based too! One being archer focus, another cavalry focused etc. This is genious!

Oh, but we would also have to limit the equipment people can spawn with. I say it should depend on how well you did the previous round.

Sadly, that is the direction cRPG is heading since january 2011 and I'll keep ranting blah

[marco1391]

from someone who played since august 2010(the heirloom patch came like 1/2 months after I started playing the game)yeah battle was incredibly hilarious with a lot of different retarded builds and people trolling with a meta still not evolved(I remember when I was like a level 28 archer and I was still getting k/d of 3 becouse of the massive imbalance with ranged being retardedly strong and plates spam)
but I still think chadz managed to save this mod with the heirloom patch and 3 month later the upkeep patch/level31 "cap" giving this game an unexpected lenght in term of playtime(and hopefully this mod will stay alive until m&b2)so kudos to him
btw I re-found this while searching for old crpg vids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNOogINr7Eg

[Joseph Porta]

Only if the set classes changed depending on if which (in-game) team you were in. So Blue team has different class options than Red team etc.

Then we could make the teams culture based too! One being archer focus, another cavalry focused etc. This is genious!

Oh, but we would also have to limit the equipment people can spawn with. I say it should depend on how well you did the previous round.

(click to show/hide)

We are explaining native.

but people will never stop complaining either I doubt it is even possible to balance an armory of this size to everyones liking..