anti-fun systems

"

grepman wrote:

I never use 'fun' unless its purely subjective. as in, this map was fun as fuck. because I realize my definition of fun is probably different from others. why cant others do it as well, especially in a pretty damn niche game ?

I was going to mention this in the namelock thread, but it's probably even more relevant here.

The general goal of game designers is to maximize fun experienced by the player. It is up to GGG to decide which players and therefore what form of fun they should most encourage. Maximizing fun for the largest number of players also happens to maximize the profits earned by GGG, which provides an economic incentive for GGG to produce for them.

But it's true that GGG doesn't have to produce for the majority. They could have made any type of game they wanted. The point of threads like this is for the more vocal part of the population to offer up what type of fun they seek, and for GGG to evaluate those statements - after all, they claim to make the game "for the players," which presumably doesn't mean "for one very small subset of players." At least, in theory.

"

adghar wrote:

The general goal of game designers is to maximize fun experienced by the player. It is up to GGG to decide which players and therefore what form of fun they should most encourage. Maximizing fun for the largest number of players also happens to maximize the profits earned by GGG, which provides an economic incentive for GGG to produce for them.

I disagree with the "profit" thing.

Here's how the gaming market really works: a player hears about games, they try a few if they can or read reviews, and after getting a taste they find the ones they really like. Once they have a "top ten" list of sorts (list size is normally 2-3, not 10), they then buy in order of preference. Games further down the list might be somewhat liked, but are never bought, or returned, or barely played.

Everyone has limited time. They can't play everything.

What this means is: just broadly appealing to a wide audience is not profitable. It's not about making a game lots of people like, it's about how many people think your game is the best game.

And if you take the entire potential gamer population, there are lots, and lots, and lots of different best games out there. It's incredibly native to think that one title could truly corner a huge swath of that population. No one game can do that.

The truth is somewhere between you and grepman. On the one hand, there is no Platonic concept of "the perfect game." On the other hand, games do have an audience and should cater to that audience in a targeted and deliberate manner.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

What this means is: just broadly appealing to a wide audience is not profitable. It's not about making a game lots of people like, it's about how many people think your game is the best game.

I think you misread me/I explained unclearly (two sides of the same coin). When I said "the majority of players," I was implying "the majority of Path of Exile players," i.e., at the current point in time, GGG is incentivized to cater to those players who are addicted to the clear-speed meta and who are convinced POE is the best game for them because of that. When you say "huge swath of the population," I imagine to myself "huge swath of the high-customization classic ARPG population," with perhaps varying levels of "classic" in there, which is very much possible - Starcraft 2 has cornered a "huge swath of the [high-octane RTS] population," while League of Legends has cornered a "huge swath of the [competitive pseudo-RPG] population." So, a far cry from "No game," with the extra words I'm imagining in there.

.

"

adghar wrote:

I think you misread me/I explained unclearly (two sides of the same coin).

Okay. Although it's a little disheartening to me how PoE's target demographic has shifted over time, that's rather tangential to your point.

"

PoE is a great game and most of it is really well done but it has a number of systems that may benefit you as a player to do but are distinctly unfun and a waste of time. I would like to see these systems removed or overhauled in some way

So, because you are tired of these systems, you want to remove the opportunity for everyone else? Yeah, because that makes sense.

1) The chaos (and regal) recipe are awesome in every way. If they were removed, it would surely break the game on a fundamental level.

2) The vendor run thing is awesome in new leagues, and I'd be really upset if that was changed or removed. Played over four years and I still do it on almost all characters I play. Crazy, huh.

3) That's like your opinion, man. I enjoy the Masters, seeing them out in the wild and in maps. I know lots of people who don't, and they don't level them either - which is perfectly fine, too. It's up to you, it's a choice. Most of the people who really dislike them seem to be the ones who run them in group rotations every day. Yeah, I'd be quite upset if I had to run 6 times the amount of dailies too. Just stop doing it, how hard can it be? Level them naturally, you neither have to or need to level them in a week.

I could sum up the entirety of your argument with this term: opportunity cost. Check that on wikipedia.

Identify all *cough cough*... tiny character inventory space *cough cough*.
Pointless annoyances are what make games fun. /s

Chaos recipe and town touring to 'steal' few jews/chromes/even 'omfg i'm rich 1 divine' per year... haha that's so small in comparison, you should feel bad for bringing this up.